Skip to main content

Full text of "Immigration restriction : a study of the opposition to and regulation of immigration into the United States"

See other formats


— f  

c)V'9..9325..73a^^^^^ 


4 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK  •   BOSTON  •    CHICAGO  •  DALLAS 
ATLANTA  •  SAN  FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO..  Limited 

LONDON  •    BOMBAY  •  CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA.  Ltd. 

TORONTO 


IMMIGRATION 
RESTRICTION 

A 

STUDY  OF  THE 
OPPOSITION  TO  AND  REGULATION  OF 
IMMIGRATION  INTO  THE 
UNITED  STATES 


/ 

BY 

ROY  L.  GARIS 

ASSOCIATE  PROFESSOR  OF  ECONOMICS  IN 
VANDERBILT  UNIVERSITY 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 
1937 

All  rights  reserved  Cl 


Copyright,  1927, 

Bt  the  macmillan  company. 


Set  up  and  printed. 
Published  August,  1927. 


\ 

13 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America  by 

J.    T.   LITTLE  AND  IVES  COMPANY,   NEW  YORk 


TO 

MY  MOTHER  AND  FATHER 


FOREWORD 


The  United  States  of  America,  ?  nation  great  in  all  things, 
is  ours  today.   To  whom  will  it  belong  tomorrow? 

Many  years  ago  our  people,  proud  of  their  institutions, 
ambitious,  hopeful,  altruistic  and  sympathetic,  entertained 
the  thought  that  their  country  was  destined  by  an  all-wise 
Providence  to  serve  as  the  world's  great  harbor  of  refuge  to 
which  the  ill-circumstanced  of  all  nations  might  repair. 
The  myth  of  the  melting  pot  grew  and  flourished.  With 
little  or  no  discrimination  we  took  unto  ourselves  the  blood 
of  all  classes  and  all  climes,  all  races  and  all  religions.  Our 
land  was  new.  It  needed  development.  We  yearned  for 
growth  in  things  material.  Counting  not  the  ultimate  cost, 
we  invited  all  to  come  to  help  us  build  our  houses  and  our 
highways,  to  help  us  dig  our  coal  and  iron  and  gold,  to  help 
us  hew  and  plant  and  fabricate. 

The  result  is  too  well  known  to  require  extensive  com- 
ment. Millions  came.  Today,  instead  of  a  well-knit 
homogenous  citizenry,  we  have  a  body  politic  made  up  of 
all  and  every  diverse  element.  Today,  instead  of  a  nation 
descended  from  generations  of  freemen  bred  to  a  knowledge 
of  the  principles  and  practices  of  self-government,  of  lib- 
erty under  law,  we  have  a  heterogeneous  population  no 
small  proportion  of  which  is  sprung  from  races  that, 
throughout  the  centuries,  have  known  no  liberty  at  all,  and 
no  law  save  the  decrees  of  overlords  and  princes.  In  other 
words,  our  capacity  to  maintain  our  cherished  institutions 
stands  diluted  by  a  stream  of  alien  blood,  with  all  its 
inherited  misconceptions  respecting  the  relationships  of  the 
governing  power  to  the  governed. 

It  is  out  of  an  appreciation  of  this  fundamental  fact, 
vague  at  first,  but  later  grown  firm  and  substantial,  that  the 

vii 


viii 


FOREWORD 


American  people  have  come  to  sanction — indeed  to  de- 
mand— reform  of  our  immigration  laws.  They  have  seen, 
patent  and  plain,  the  encroachments  of  the  foreign-born 
flood  upon  their  own  lives.  They  have  come  to  realize  that 
such  a  flood,  affecting  as  it  does  every  individual  of  what- 
ever race  or  origin,  can  not  fail  likewise  to  affect  the  institu- 
tions which  have  made  and  preserved  American  liberties. 
It  is  no  wonder,  therefore,  that  the  myth  of  the  melting  pot 
has  been  discredited.  It  is  no  wonder  that  Americans  every- 
where are  insisting  that  their  land  no  longer  shall  offer  free 
and  unrestricted  asylum  to  the  rest  of  the  world. 

The  United  States  is  our  land.  If  it  was  not  the  land  of 
our  fathers,  at  least  it  may  be,  and  it  should  be,  the  land  of 
our  children.  We  intend  to  maintain  it  so.  The  day  of  un- 
alloyed welcome  to  all  peoples,  the  day  of  indiscriminate 
acceptance  of  all  races,  has  definitely  ended. 

Albert  Johnson, 


Chairman,  Committee  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization,  House  of 
Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 


PREFACE 


No  field  of  modern  discussion  has  been  so  marred  by 
prejudice  as  the  immigration  problem.  Blood  has  been  not 
only  thicker  than  water  but  more  compelling  than  the  cooler 
processes  of  thought.  The  average  man  has  thought  of  the 
immigration  problem  in  terms  of  himself  or  of  his  immediate 
ancestry.  Although  all  Americans,  except  the  Indians,  are 
in  a  sense  immigrants,  yet  from  the  first  years  of  our  gov- 
ernment to  the  present  hour,  those  who  have  been  prior  in 
point  of  time  have  looked  with  no  little  misgivings  on  the 
stream  of  immigrants  that  have  followed  them.  Race  prej- 
udice has  too  often  controlled  legislation  tow^ards  the  new 
comers.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  policy  of  the  wide  open 
door  has  sometimes  been  carried  to  the  point  where  it 
seemed  to  careful  observers  that  the  distinctively  American 
spirit  in  community  life,  in  government,  in  industry,  might 
be  jeopardized. 

The  most  amazing  thing  about  the  immigration  problem 
is  the  likeness  of  the  arguments  of  one  generation  to  the 
contentions  of  another.  The  points  of  view  and  prejudices 
of  many  sons  are  like  unto  their  fathers'.  Here,  as  in  other 
enduring  issues,  there  seems  to  be  no  new  thing  under  the 
sun.  How  important,  then,  is  the  task  of  every  citizen  to 
think  through  the  immigration  question  for  himself,  to  free 
himself  from  bias,  to  seek  only  the  truth !  The  great  debates 
and  changes  in  the  immigration  policy  in  the  past  illuminate 
the  future;  it  is  rank  folly  to  attempt  the  solution  of  the 
problem  in  1927  by  century-old  prejudices  and  to  ignore  the 
history  of  the  attempts  that  have  been  made  to  deal  fairly 
with  ourselves  and  with  the  strangers  knocking  at  our  gates. 

A  study  of  the  development  of  the  opposition  to  immi- 
gration into  this  country  is  a  continuous  illustration  of  the 

iz 


X 


PREFACE 


principle  set  forth  by  Dicey  that  in  even  the  most  demo- 
cratic countries  "the  opinion  which  changes  the  law  is  in 
one  sense  the  opinion  of  the  time  when  the  law  is  actually 
altered;  in  another  sense  it  has  often  been — the  opinion 
prevalent  some  twenty  or  thirty  years  before  that  time;  it 
has  been  as  often  as  not  in  reality  the  opinion  not  of  to-day, 
but  of  yesterday."  ^ 

Many  persons  believe  that  the  opposition  to  immigration 
is  a  thing  of  recent  years.  Yet  as  one  seeks  for  the  origin 
of  the  opposition  to  immigration,  it  is  necessary  to  go  fur- 
ther and  further  back  into  our  history,  even  to  early  colonial 
days.  There  we  find  the  colonists  with  hostile  feelings  to- 
ward the  immigrants  who  were  entering,  while  a  bitter 
opposition  found  expression  in  colonial  laws  against  certain 
undesirable  classes,  especially  against  paupers,  criminals, 
the  indentured  classes  and  against  certain  religious  sects, 
especially  the  Catholics.  From  those  earliest  days  to  the 
present  time  there  has  been  a  developing  opposition  to 
immigration,  greater  at  some  periods  in  our  history  than  at 
other  periods,  yet  always  in  evidence.  Frequently  it  failed 
to  result  in  legislation.  Yet  the  arguments  grew  stronger 
and  the  demand  for  restriction  and  selection  grew  greater, 
until  first  the  states  under  their  police  powers  and  then  the 
Federal  Government  under  its  commercial  powers  passed 
legislation  designed  to  solve  the  problems  resulting  from 
immigration. 

To  understand  present  day  legislation  one  should  study 
the  development  of  this  opposition  to  really  appreciate  the 
fact  that  the  legislation  of  to-day  is  not  a  thing  of  the 
moment  but  the  product  of  almost  two  hundred  years  of 
study  and  thought  by  the  American  people.  Virtually 
every  argument,  every  means  of  restriction,  and  every 
method  of  investigation  used  in  recent  years  has  been  used 
or  recommended  at  various  times  in  our  history  for  over 
a  hundred  years. 

No  book  to-day  presents  this  side  of  the  picture  in  any 

*  Dicey,  "Law  and  Public  Opinion  in  England,"  pp.  7,  32. 


PREFACE 


xi 


adequate  manner.  It  has  been  my  purpose  to  trace  the 
development  of  the  opposition  to  immigration  from  the 
earliest  colonial  days  to  the  present  time.  At  the  same 
time  I  have  tried  to  keep  the  other  side  of  the  problem  ever 
before  the  reader.  References  to  any  standard  text  on  the 
subject  will  enlarge  such  points  noted  throughout  the  study. 

The  accumulation  of  evidence  has  led  me  to  believe  in  the 
necessity  of  immigration  restriction.  However,  in  tracing 
the  development  of  the  opposition  to  immigration  and  the 
legislation  that  has  resulted  therefrom,  it  has  not  been  my 
purpose  in  this  study  to  judge  the  merit  and  truthfulness 
of  the  causes  of  the  opposition  and  legislation.  Hence,  I 
have  sought  to  point  out  only  the  particular  grounds  on 
which  these  rest.  For,  it  has  been  impossible  in  one  vol- 
ume to  present  the  picture  of  developing  opposition  and 
at  the  same  time  to  pass  judgment  thereon  in  any  detailed 
manner.  However,  the  author  will  have  accomplished  his 
purpose  if  he  causes  a  stimulation  of  interest  in  the  prob- 
lem by  presenting  this  neglected  side  of  the  subject. 


Roy  L.  Garis. 


CONTENTS 


PAQB 


Foreword 


Vll 


By  Hon.  Albert  Johnson,  Chairman,  Committee  on  Immi- 
gration and  Naturalization,  House  of  Representatives. 


Preface 


IX 


CHAPTER 


I   Colonial  Regulation  of  Immigration  ....  1 

Immigration  into  the  United  States:  Its  growth — Periods 
— The  colonies  English  in  structure — Colonial  ideals — The 
southern  colonists — The  northern  colonists — The  Dutch — 
The  Scotch-Irish — The  Germans — The  French  Huguenots 
— The  indentured  classes — Pauper  and  criminal  classes — 
Colonial  legislation  and  opposition — Results — Conclusions. 

II   Opposition  to  and  Regulation  of  Immigration 


State  regulation  prior  to  1792 — Washington's  policy  during 
Revolutionary  War — His  later  views — Views  of  Adams, 
Franklin  and  Jefferson — Constitutional  provisions  concern- 
ing foreigners — Early  naturalization  laws — AHen  and  Sedi- 
tion Laws — Early  nineteenth  century  views — State  legis- 
lation— Resolutions  in  Congress — Pauper  and  criminal  im- 
migration— Consular  reports — Other  causes  of  hostility  to 
immigration — Riots  against  Catholics  and  Germans — Na- 
tive Americanism — Presidential  elections  of  1844  and  1852 
— The  American  Party — Opposition  in  the  fifties — Obsta- 
cles to  Federal  legislation. 

III  Power  of  Congress  Over  Immigration  ....  59 

Congressional  authority  under  Article  I,  Section  9  of  the 
Constitution — Cases — The  internal  police  power  of  the 
states — Cases — Congressional  authority  over  immigration 
under  the  power  to  regulate  commerce — Cases — Conclu- 
sions. 

IV  Federal  Immigration  Legislation  to  1914  .    .    .  83 


Earlv  Acts  of  Congress— Act  of  1875— Act  of  1882— Acts 
of  1885,  1887,  1888— Ford  Committee  Report— Act  of  1891 
—Acts  of  1893— Act  of  1894— Recommendations  of  Presi- 
dent Roosevelt  in  1<X)1— Act  of  1903— Minor  Acts— Act  of 
1907— Act  of  1910— Act  of  1913— Conclusions. 


1775-1882 


22 


xiii 


xiv 


CONTENTS 


V   Federal  Immigration  Legislation  1914-1921  .    .  117 

Recommendations  of  the  Immigration  Commission — Pub- 
lic opinion  and  the  hteracy  test — The  Immigration  Act  of 
1917— Act  of  December  26,  1920— The  AHen  Anarchist 
Act  of  1918-1920— Act  of  May  10,  1920— Act  of  June  5, 
1920— Summary. 

VI   The  Emergency  Quota  Legislation  1921-1924    .  142 

Purpose  of  the  Act  of  May  19,  1921 — Provisions  of  the 
act — The  first  year  of  its  operation — Problems  created  by 
it — Its  life  extended  for  two  years  by  the  Act  of  May  11, 
1922 — The  second  year  under  the  law — The  third  year  un- 
der the  law — Effects  on  the  old  and  new  immigration — Net 
immigration  into  the  United  States — Immigration  by  races 
'  or  peoples — English-speaking  immigrants — Conclusion. 

VII   The  Immigration  Act  of  1924    169 

President  Coolidge's  recommendations  on  Immigration — 
History  of  the  Johnson  Bill — Provisions  of  the  new  law — 
Non-immigrant  classes — Non-quota  immigrants — The  case 
•  for  aliens  now  here  without  their  immediate  families — 
Alien  wives  of  American  citizens — Travel  permits  for 
aliens  now  here — Provisions  concerning  ministers,  profes- 
sors and  students — The  quota  provisions — Preferences  with- 
in the  quotas — Provisions  concerning  immigration  visas — 
Penal  provisions — Provisions  to  check  illegal  entry  of  im- 
migrants as  seamen — Burden  of  proof  on  the  alien — This 
act  is  additional  legislation  on  immigration — Sources  of 
opposition. 

VIII    Back  to  1890    203 

The  history  and  characteristics  of  the  "old"  and  "new" 
immigration — The  Italian  Immigrants — The  Slavs — The 
Russian  immigrants — The  Jewish  immigration — Views  of 
various  authorities  on  immigration — The  test  of  naturaliza- 
tion— The  army  tests — Report  of  Dr.  H.  H.  Laughlin  of  the 
Carnegie  Institute — Analysis  of  the  quotas  based  on  the 
census  of  1890 — The  criticism  of  discrimination  is  without 
foundation — Census  of  1890  creates  equalization  rather  than 
discrimination — The  National  Origins  Plan., 

IX   Chinese  Immigration  286 

Causes  of  early  opposition  to  Chinese — Early  state  and 
municipal  legislation  against  them — Early  treaties — The 
Burlingame  treaty  of  1868 — President  Grant's  recommen- 
dation— Congressional  investigation — The  Committee's  Re- 
port—Act of  1875— The  treaty  of  1880— Act  of  1882— 
Act  of  1884— The  unratified  treaty  of  1888— Acts  of  1888 
—Cases— Act  of  1892— Cases— Act  of  1893— Treaty  of 
1894— Act  of  1894— Acts  of  1900— Act  of  1902— Act  of  1904 
— Conchi.sions  on  Chinese  immigration — Act  of  1917 — 
Hindu  iiiinii,"ration. 


CONTENTS 


XV 


CHAPTER 


PAGE 


X   Japanese  Immigration  . 


308 


Analysis  of  the  Japanese  population  in  the  United  States 
— Japanese  and  Chinese  immigration  compared — Japanese 
in  Hawaii — Causes  and  results  of  Japanese  emigration — 
The  development  of  anti-Japanese  agitation  in  the  United 
States — California's  position — Act  of  1907 — The  Gentle- 
men's Afi;roement — Treaties  of  1894  and  1911 — Criticisms 
of  the  Agreement — House  Report  350 — History  of  the 
Japanese  exclusion  clause — Effect  of  the  Hanihara 
letter — The  bill  in  conference — The  fear  of  a  treaty — 
Passage — Japan's  protest — Analysis  of  the  law — Japanese 
opinion — American  opinion — Japanese  fear  of  and  protest 
against  discriminatory  legislation — Views  of  American 
officials — Conclusions. 


Bibliography 


355 


Index 


373 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


CHAPTER  I 
Colonial  Regulation  of  Immigration 

Immigration  into  United  States:  Its  Growth — Periods — The  colonies 
English  in  structure — Colonial  ideals — The  southern  colonists — The  northern 
colonists — The  Dutch — The  Scotch-Irish — The  Germans — The  French 
Huguenots — The  Indentured  classes — Pauper  and  criminal  classes — Colo- 
nial legislation  and  opposition — Results — Conclusions. 

The  immigration  problem  is  almost  as  old  as  immigration 
itself;  and  that  means,  in  American  history,  almost  coter- 
minous with  the  settlement  of  the  country.  For,  the  peo- 
pling of  the  continent  has  been  well-nigh  from  the  beginning 
due  to  immigration,  rather  than  to  the  natural  increase  of 
those  already  within  the  country. 

In  1640  the  population  of  the  colonies  was  25,000.  In 
1660  the  population  had  increased  to  80,000;  and  in  1689 
to  about  200,000.  The  half-million  mark  was  passed  in 
1721;  the  million  mark  in  1743;  and  the  two  million  mark 
in  1767.  At  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution  «the  population 
numbered  about  two  and  one-half  million.  When  the  first 
census  was  taken  in  1790,  the  population,  exclusive  of  Ver- 
mont and  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio,  was  a  little 
short  of  four  million,  viz.,  3,929,000.  From  1790  to  1820  the 
immigrants  numbered  about  a  quarter  of  a  million;  in  the 
early  twenties  the  annual  influx  of  immigrants  was  about 
ten  or  twelve  thousand;  in  the  late  twenties  about  twenty 
thousand.  In  1837,  just  before  the  panic,  the  annual  immi- 
gration was  79,000.  By  1842  the  figures  of  annual  immigra- 
tion had  reached  100,000;  by  1854,  428,000.  Then,  owing 
first  to  the  bad  times  and  later  to  the  war,  the  figures  fell 

1 


2 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


off,  increasing  again  subsequently  until  in  1873,  just  before 
the  panic,  when  immigration  equaled  459,000.  Thereafter 
the  high-  and  low-water  marks  of  annual  immigration 
varied  with  good  and  bad  times.  By  1882  the  high-water 
mark  was  789,000.  It  was  not  until  the  present  century 
that  the  annual  immigration  exceeded  a  million,  the  net 
increase  in  1907  being  1,050,000.  The  gross  immigration 
in  that  year  was  1,285,000,  a  figure  almost  reached  again 
in  1914  when  the  gross  immigration  was  1,218,000;  although 
in  that  year  the  net  increase  was  only  769,000.  Every  year 
from  1900  to  1914  saw  virtually  a  million  or  more  immi- 
grants enter  our  gates. 

''The  history  of  immigration  into  the  United  States  may 
for  convenience  be  divided  into  five  periods.  The  first  of 
these  includes  the  time  between  the  first  settlement  of  the 
North  American  colonies  and  the  year  1783.  This  date  is 
chosen  for  the  end  of  this  first  period  because,  as  Professor 
Mayo-Smith  has  expressed  it,  'At  that  time  the  state  was 
established  and  any  further  additions  to  the  population  had 
little  influence  in  changing  its  form  or  the  language  and  cus- 
toms of  the  people.'  ^  The  second  period,  from  1783  to  1830, 
may  be  called  the  period  of  'free  immigration'.  It  coincides 
with  the  beginning  of  our  independent  life,  and  the  begin- 
ning of  immigration  as  a  distinctly  American  national  prob- 
lem, lit  was  a  period  of  small  immigration,  and  may  be 
designated  as  the  period  of  free  immigration  because  no 
attempt  was  made  by  any  governmental  agency  to  control 
the  movement.  The  action  of  the  Federal  Government 
in  beginning  to  count  the  immigrants  in  1820  is  of  great 
importance  as  marking  the  beginning  of  our  immigration 
statistics.  The  third  period  begins  with  1830  and  ends  in 
1882.  It  may  be  called  the  period  of  'agitation  and  state 
regulation'.  The  year  1830  is  chosen  rather  arbitrarily  as 
representing  better  than  any  other  assignable  date  the 
appearance  of  a  new  sentiment  toward  immigration  on  the 
part  of  the  American  people.  The  fourth  period,  from  1882 
to  1917,  is  marked  by  the  passage  of  two  important  pieces 

*  Mayo-Smith,  R.,  Emigration  and  Immigration,  p.  36. 


COLONIAL  REGULATION  OF  IMMIGRATION  3 


of  legislation,  and  may  be  called  the  period  of  'federal  con- 
trol: individual  selection'.  The  final  period,  from  1917  to 
the  present,  may  be  designated  the  period  of  'federal  con- 
trol: group  selection  and  restriction.' ^ 

The  first  attempts  to  found  colonies  in  this  country  by 
Sir  Humphrey  Gilbert  and  Sir  Walter  Raleigh  were  pitiable 
failures.  But  the  settlement  on  the  James  River  in  1607 
marked  the  beginning  of  a  nation — a  nation  that  was  cer- 
tainly English  in  its  foundation,  whatever  may  be  said  of 
the  superstructure.  Virginia,  New  England,  Maryland,  the 
Carolinas,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  and  Georgia  were 
begun  by  Englishmen;  and  New  England,  Virginia,  and 
Maryland  remained  almost  entirely  English  throughout  the 
seventeenth  century  and  well  into  the  eighteenth.  ''For- 
eigners" began  early  to  straggle  into  the  colonies.  But  not 
until  the  eighteenth  century  was  well  under  way  did 
they  come  in  appreciable  numbers,  and  even  then  the 
great  bulk  of  these  non-English  newcomers  were  from  the 
British  Isles,  of  Welsh,  Scotch,  Irish,  and  Scotch-Irish 
extraction. 

"These  colonies  reproduced,  in  so  far  as  their  strange  and 
wild  surroundings  permitted,  the  towns,  the  estates,  and  the 
homes  of  Englishmen  of  that  day.  They  were  organized 
and  governed  by  Englishmen  under  English  customs  and 
laws;  and  the  Englishman's  constitutional  liberties  were 
their  boast  until  the  colonies  wrote  these  rights  and  priv- 
ileges into  a  constitution  of  their  own."  ^ 

These  colonies  took  root  at  a  time  when  profound  social 
and  religious  changes  were  occurring  in  England.  Church- 
men and  dissenters  were  at  war  with  each  other ;  autocracy 
was  struggling  to  survive  the  representative  system;  and 
agrarianism  was  contending  with  a  newly  created  capitalism 
for  economic  supremacy.  The  old  order  was  changing. 
Vain  attempts  were  made  to  stay  the  progress  of  the  time 
by  labor,  poor,  and  corn  laws.  However,  these  laws  only 
served  to  fill  the  highways  with  vagrants,  vagabonds,  men- 

*Fairchild,  Immigration  (rev.  ed.),  pp.  31-2. 
^  Orth,  S.  P.,  Our  Foreigners,  p.  6. 


4 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


dicants,  beggars  and  worse.  Under  conditions  then  existing 
it  was  felt  that  the  country  was  overpopulated.  It  was  for 
these — for  the  restive,  the  discontented,  the  ambitious,  as 
well  as  for  the  undesirable  surplus,  that  the  American  colo- 
nies provided  a  welcome  outlet. 

To  the  southern  plantations  were  lured  those  to  whom 
land  own'ing  offered  not  only  a  means  of  livelihood  but 
social  distinction.  These  settlers  were,  in  part,  adventurers; 
younger  sons  of  noble  families  who  disdained  trade  but 
were  too  poor  to  keep  up  family  pretensions;  professional 
men,  lawyers,  doctors  and  even  clergymen  who  were  ambi- 
tious to  become  landed  gentlemen;  and  other  members  of 
the  aristocracy  who  found  it  advisable  to  leave  England, 
and,  in  part,  rather  unworthy  representatives  of  the  lower 
classes.  A  combination  of  political,  social,  and  economic 
causes  was  responsible  for  their  coming. 

The  northern  colonies  were  settled  by  a  different  class  of 
the  population.  They  were  settled  by  the  Separatists  and 
Puritans  whose  motive  for  coming  was  primarily  of  a  reli- 
gious character,  and  by  the  town-folk,  by  that  sturdy  middle 
class  which  had  wedged  its  way  socially  between  the  aris- 
tocracy and  the  peasantry,  which  asserted  itself  politically 
in  the  Cromwellian  Commonwealth  and  later  became  the 
industrial  master  of  trade  and  manufacture. 

The  Dutch  came  to  Manhattan  in  1623,  taking  posses- 
sion of  this  unassigned  central  region.  Although  they  held 
sway  over  the  region  in  which  they  settled  for  only  fifty 
years,  yet  it  was  long  enough  to  stamp  upon  New  Amster- 
dam the  cosmopolitan  character  it  has  ever  since  main- 
tained. For,  ^'the  same  spirit  that  made  Holland  the  lenient 
host  to  political  and  religious  refugees  from  every  land  in 
that  restive  age  characterized  her  colony  and  laid  the  foun- 
dations of  the  great  city  of  to-day."  ^  With  the  growth  of 
the  English  colonies  in  the  North  and  South,  this  central 
territory  in  the  hands  of  a  foreign  power  came  to  be  recog- 
nized as  a  source  of  annoyance  and  danger,  for,  due  to  its 
geographical  location,  it  threatened  to  split  the  English  colo- 

^Orth,  S.  P.,  op.  cit.,  p.  14. 


COLONIAL  REGULATION  OF  IMMIGRATION  5 


nies.  Faced  with  such  a  possibility,  on  the  occasion  of  a  war 
with  Holland,  England  took  possession  of  this  region  with- 
out serious  opposition;  and  from  it  formed  the  colonies  of 
New  York  and  New  Jersey. 

When  the  territory  of  Pennsylvania  was  granted  for  set- 
tlement to  William  Penn  in  1681,  the  whole  Atlantic  coast 
from  Canada  to  Florida  became  a  field  of  colonization,  sub- 
ject only  to  English  authority.  The  foundation  of  the 
United  States  thus  consisted  of  colonists  from  England. 
However,  in  addition  to  the  colonists,  people  from  practi- 
cally every  country  on  the  continent  came  to  these  English 
colonies.  These  were  the  true  immigrants  and  for  the  most 
part  they  came  to  the  central  colonies,  especially  to  New 
York  and  Pennsylvania.  These  were,  in  particular,  the 
Scotch-Irish,  the  Germans  or  Palatines,  and  the  French 
Huguenots. 

^  The  most  important  and  influential  influx  of  non-English 
stock  into  the  colonies  was  the  copious  stream  of  Scotch- 
Irish,  who  were  called  Scots  because  they  lived  originally 
in  Scotia  and  Irish  because  they  moved  to  Ireland,  although 
they  were  "very  little  Scotch  and  much  less  Irish."  ^  Fron- 
tier life  was  not  a  new  experience  to  these  hardy  and 
remarkable  people,  for  when  they  migrated  to  Ulster  it  was 
a  wild  moorland  and  the  Irish  were  more  than  unfriendly 
neighbors.  Yet,  within  three  generations  they  had  changed 
the  fens  and  mires  into  fields  and  gardens  and  had  built 
flourishing  towns  and  were  doing  a  thriving  manufacture 
in  linens  and  woolens.  Early  in  the  eighteenth  century  in 
her  mercantilist  blindness,  England  began  to  pass  legislation 
that  discriminated  against  and  cut  off  these  articles  from 
English  competition.  Nor  was  the  British  Parliament  con- 
tent with  this,  for  it  also  discriminated  against  Presbyter- 
ianism.  Since  these  Scotch-Irish  were  Presbyterians,  their 
religion  was  thus  subject  to  attack.  Furthermore,  their 
hundred  year  leases  were  running  out  and  the  low-living 
Irish  began  to  outbid  them  by  offering  to  pay  higher  rents. 
These  civil,  religious  and  economic  persecutions  thereupon 

°  Commons,  Races  and  Immigrants  in  America,  p.  32. 


6 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


provoked  the  largest  immigration  into  the  colonies  that  oc- 
curred before  the  Revolution. 

Entire  congregations  came,  each  headed  by  its  pastor. 
Between  1714  and  1720,  fifty-four  ships  arrived  in  Boston 
with  immigrants  from  Ireland.  It  is  said  that  in  1718 
forty- two  hundred  of  them  left  for  America,  and  that  after 
the  famine  of  1740  at  least  twelve  thousand  departed  an- 
nually. In  the  half  century  preceding  the  American  Revo- 
lution one  hundred  fifty  thousand  or  mote,  perhaps  two 
hundred  thousand,  came  to  America,  and  on  the  eve  of  the 
Revolution  the  stock  was  supposed  to  constitute  a  sixth  of 
the  population  of  the  colonies. 
lixlt  is  most  interesting  to  note  how  the  colonists  felt  toward 
these  Scotch-Irish  immigrants.  Cotton  Mather  wrote  in  his 
diary  on  August  7,  1718:  ''But  what  shall  be  done  for  the 
great  number  of  people  that  are  transporting  themselves 
thither  from  ye  North  of  Ireland?"  John  Winthrop,  speak- 
ing of  twenty  ministers  and  their  congregations  that  were 
expected  the  same  year,  said,  "I  wish  their  coming  so  over 
do  not  prove  fatall  in  the  End."  i/In  1728  an  Irish  arch- 
bishop lamented  that,  ''The  whole  North  is  in  a  ferment." 
"It  looks  as  if  Ireland  were  to  send  all  her  inhabitants 
hither,"  \)complained  the  governor  of  Pennsylvania.  The 
great  mass  of  the  Scotch-Irish  came  to  Pennsylvania,  and 
in  such  large  numbers  that  James  Logan,  the  Secretary  of 
the  Province,  wrote  to  the  Proprietors  in  alarm  in  1729, 
"last  week  not  less  than  six  ships  arrived,  and  every  day 
two  or  three  arrive  also." 

From  this  it  is  evident  that  they  were  not  always  wel- 
come. At  the  time  of  their  arrival  the  lands  along  the 
Atlantic  coast  were  already  well  occupied.  It  is  evident 
that  they  had  no  intention  of  burdening  the  towns;  but,  true 
to  their  traditions,  they  pushed  on  to  the  frontier,  where 
they  settled  and  bore  the  brunt  of  the  warfare  with  the  sav- 
age. Thus,  due  to  the  religious  exclusiveness  of  Massa- 
chusetts and  the  well-settled  character  of  the  country,  as 
well  as  due  to  a  more  or  less  general  feeling  of  hostility  of 
the  English  colonists  toward  certain  types  of  immigrants, 


COLONIAL  REGULATION  OF  IMMIGRATION  7 


they  chose  as  their  destination  New  Hampshire,  Vermont, 
Western  Massachusetts,  and  Maine,  and,  most  of  all,  Penn- 
.  sylvania,  and  the  foothill  regions  of  Virginia  and  the  Caro- 
linas.  By  nature  typical  pioneers,  they  pushed  into  western 
Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Kentucky,  and  Tennessee.  ^They 
found  their  way  over  the  mountain  trails  into  the  western 
part  of  the  colony  of  Pennsylvania;  they  pushed  southward 
along  the  fertile  plateaus  that  terrace  the  Blue  Ridge  Moun- 
tains and  offer  a  natural  highway  to  the  South;  into  Vir- 
ginia where  they  possessed  themselves  of  the  beautiful 
Shenandoah  Valley;  into  Maryland  and  the  Carolinas;  until 
the  whole  western  frontier  from  Georgia  to  New  York  and 
from  Massachusetts  to  Maine,  was  the  skirmish  line  of  the 
Scotch-Irish  taking  possession  of  the  wilderness/'  ^  It  was 
owing  to  them  that  the  Quakers  and  Germans  of  Pennsyl- 
vania were  left  undisturbed  to  live  up  to  their  ideals  of 
peace  and  non-resistance.  No  other  element  was  so  master- 
ful and  contentious.  The  Quakers  characterized  them  as 
a  ^^pernicious  ana  pugnacious  people  who  absolutely  want 
to  control  the  province  themselves."  'They  fought  the 
Indians,  fought  the  British  with  great  unanimity  in  two 
wars,  and  were  in  the  front  rank  in  the  conquest  of  the 
West.  More  than  any  other  stock  has  this  tough,  gritty 
breed,  so  lacking  in  poetry  and  sensibility,  molded  our  na- 
tional character."  ^ 

Germantown,  near  Philadelphia,  was  founded  in  1683  by 
a  group  of  religious  refugees  from  the  Rhineland.  Other 
German  communities  were  started  in  the  neighboring  coun- 
ties. ''Chief  among  these  German  sectarians  were  the  Men- 
nonites,  frequently  called  the  German  Quakers;  the  Bunk- 
ers, a  Baptist  sect,  who  seem  to  have  come  from  Germany 
boot  and  baggage,  leaving  not  one  of  their  number  behind ; 
and  the  Moravians,  whose  missionary  zeal  and  gentle  de- 
meanor have  made  them  beloved  in  many  lands."  ^ 

William  Penn  established  the  colony  of  Pennsylvania 

'•Orth,  S.  P,  op.        p.  12. 

'  Ross,  E.  A.,  The  Old  World  in  the  New,  p.  13. 

'Orth,  S.  P.,  op.  cit.,  p.  13. 


8 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


both  as  a  refuge  for  the  persecuted  Quakers  of  England  and 
as  a  real  estate  venture.  ''He  was  the  first  American  to  ad- 
vertise his  dominions  widely  throughout  Europe,  offering  to 
sell  one  hundred  acres  of  land  at  two  English  pounds  and 
a  low  rental.  His  advertisements  combined  humanity  and 
business,  for  they  called  attention  to  popular  government 
and  universal  suffrage ;  equal  rights  to  all  regardless  of  race 
or  religious  belief;  trial  by  jury;  murder  and  treason  the 
only  capital  crimes,  and  reformation,  not  retaliation,  the 
object  of  punishment  for  other  offenses.''  ^  Although  set- 
tled a  half  century  later  than  the  Southern  and  Northern 
Colonies,  Pennsylvania  soon  exceeded  them  in  population. 
Penn  sent  his  agents  to  Germany,  who  persuaded  large 
numbers  of  German  Quakers  and  Pietists  to  emigrate  to  his 
colony.  In  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century  when 
Louis  XIV  overran  the  Palatinate,  thousands  of  Germans 
fled  to  England,  where  they  were  encouraged  by  the  Eng- 
lish government  to  migrate  to  America.  Queen  Anne  even 
invited  the  harassed  peasants  of  this  region  to  come  to 
England,  whence  they  could  be  transferred  to  America. 
Over  thirty  thousand  took  advantage  of  the  opportunity  in 
the  years  1708  and  1709.  So  great  was  the  furor  to  reach 
the  new  world  that  ''ship  after  ship  breasted  the  Delaware, 
black  with  Palatines,  Hanoverians,  Saxons,  Austrians  and 
Swiss."  11 

Vast  numbers  of  these  penniless  Germans,  who  could  not 
get  to  America  in  any  other  way,  overcame  the  cost  barrier, 
equal  to  about  $500  to-day,  by  contracting  with  ship  owners 
to  sell  themselves  into  servitude  for  a  term  of  years.  In 
this  way  thousands  of  the  poorer  sort  of  Germans  were 
induced  to  indenture  themselves  to  the  settlers  to  whom 
they  were  auctioned  off  by  the  ship  captains  in  payment  for 
transportation.  Then,  too,  after  1717  multitudes  of  Ger- 
man peasants  were  lured  to  America  by  unscrupulous  agents 
called  "new-landers"  or  "soul-stealers",  who,  for  a  commis- 

°  Commons,  op.  cit.,  pp.  29-30. 

Fi.'^ke,  The  Dutch  and  Qvakcr  Colonics  in  America,  vol.  II,  p.  351. 
"  Rofc.s,  op.  cit.,  p.  11. 


COLONIAL  REGULATION  OF  IMMIGRATION  9 


sion  paid  by  the  ship  master,  lured  the  peasant  to  sell  his 
belongings,  scrape  together  or  borrow  what  he  could,  and 
migrate.  Since  but  few  arrived  in  America  out  of  debt  they 
were  sold  to  ''soul-drivers,"  who  took  them  into  the  interior 
and  indentured  them  to  farmers,  usually  of  their  own  race. 
After  serving  from  three  to  five  years  these  redemptioners 
generally  received  fifty  acres  of  land. 

Before  the  Revolution  not  fewer  than  60,000  Germans 
had  debarked  at  Philadelphia,  to  say  nothing  of  the  others 
who  had  settled  in  New  York  in  the  Mohawk  Valley,  and 
thousands  of  others  in  the  South.  But,  by  far  the  most  of 
them  settled  in  Pennsylvania,  where,  ''with  an  instinct  born 
of  generations  of  contact  with  the  soil,  they  sought  out  the 
most  promising  areas  in  the  limestone  valleys  of  the  eastern 
part  of  that  colony,  cleared  the  land,  built  their  solid  homes 
and  ample  barns,  and  clung  to  their  language,  customs,  and 
religion  so  tenaciously  that  to  this  day  their  descendants  are 
called  'Pennsylvania  Dutch'." 

The  virtues  of  these  Germans  were  economic  virtues ;  in- 
variably they  have  been  characterized  as  "quiet,  industrious, 
and  thrifty."  They  have  been  characterized  also  as  perhaps 
the  most  miserable  and  the  most  hopeful  set  of  people  ever 
set  down  on  our  shores.  In  spite  of  their  poverty,  they 
manifested  a  stern  and  determined  spirit  in  their  fight  for 
their  faith  and  home. 

While  it  would  seem  from  what  we  have  written  that  they 
were  welcomed  into  the  colonies,  yet  this  was  not  always 
the  case.  In  1710  several  thousand  of  them,  who  had  ar- 
rived in  New  York,  were  given  such  illiberal  treatment  that 
they  moved  into  Pennsylvania.  It  is  recorded  that  "they 
were  welcomed  by  the  New  York  colonists  with  privation, 
distress,  fraud,  and  cruel  disappointment.  They  were 
cheated  and  oppressed,  their  helplessness  making  them  easy 
victims." 

That  they  were  not  always  welcome  in  Pennsylvania  and 
that  at  least  at  various  times  a  feeling  of  hostility  existed 
against  them  even  there  is  evident  from  the  writings  of 

"Orth,  S.  P,  op.  cit.,  p.  14. 


10 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


Benjamin  Franklin.  In  his  ''Observations  on  the  Increase 
of  Mankind,"  he  wrote  in  1751 :  ''Why  should  the  Palatine 
boors  be  suffered  to  swarm  into  our  settlements  and  by  herd- 
ing together  establish  their  language  and  manners  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  ours?  Why  should  Pennsylvania,  founded  by 
England,  become  a  colony  of  aliens,  who  will  shortly  be  so  . 
numerous  as  to  Germanize  us  instead  of  our  Anglifying  : 
them?"  1-  In  a  letter  to  Peter  Collinson,  dated  May  9, 
1753,  he  wrote,  "The  Germans  who  come  hither  are  gener- 
ally the  most  stupid  of  their  own  nation,  and  as  ignorance  is 
often  attended  by  credulity  when  knavery  would  mislead  it 
.  .  .  it  is  almost  impossible  to  remove  any  prejudices 
they  may  entertain.  .  .  .  Not  being  used  to  liberty 
they  know  not  how  to  make  a  modest  use  of  it.^^  Unless 
the  stream  of  importation  could  be  turned  from  this  to  other 
colonies,  they  will  soon  outnumber  us,  that  all  the  advan- 
tages we  have  will  not  be  able  to  preserve  our  language  and 
even  our  government  will  become  precarious." 

On  the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes  by  Louis  XIV 
in  1685  French  Protestants  fled  in  vast  numbers  to  England 
and  Holland7Tronrwhidi  countries  many  of  them  found 
their  way  to  America.  But  few  of  them  came  hither  directly 
from  France.  South  Carolina,  Virginia,  New  York,  Rhode 
Island,  and  Massachusetts  were  favored  by  these  noble  refu- 
gees, who  included  in  their  numbers  not  only  skilled  artisans 
and  successful  merchants,  but  distinguished  scholars  and 
professional  men  in  whose  veins  flowed  some  of  the  best 
blood  of  France.  Probably  no  stock  ever  came  here  so  i 
gifted  and  prepotent  as  these  French  Huguenots.  They  I 
readily  identified  themselves  with  the  industry  and  aspira- 
tions of  the  colonies  and  at  once  became  the  leaders  in 
the  professional  and  business  life  in  their  communities. 
Although  only  a  few  thousands  in  numbers,  their  descend- 
ants furnished  589  of  the  fourteen  thousand  and  more 
Americans  deemed  worthy  of  a  place  in  "Appleton's  Cyclo- 

"  Works  of  Benjamin  Franklin,  ed.  by  John  Bigelow,  1887,  Vol.  II,  p.  233. 
"This  is  an  argument  frequently  heard  in  recent  years  in  favor  of  re- 
striction of  immigration. 
^*Ibid.,  pp.  297-299. 


COLONIAL  REGULATION  OF  IMMIGRATION  11 


pedia  of  American  Biography".  In  1790  only  one-half  of 
one  percent,  of  our  people  bore  a  French  name,  yet  this 
element  contributed  4.2  percent,  of  the  eminent  names  in 
our  history.  ''In  Boston,  in  Charleston,  in  New  York,  and 
in  other  commercial  centers,  the  n^mes  of  streets,  squares, 
and  public  buildings  attest  their  prominence  in  trade  and 
politics."  ''Like  the  Puritans  and  the  Quakers,  the 
Huguenots  were  of  an  element  that  meets  the  test  of  fire 
and  makes  supreme  sacrifices  for  conscience'  sake.  They 
had  the  same  afiinity  for  ideals  and  the  same  tenacity  of 
character  as  the  founders  of  New  England,  but  in  their 
French  blood  they  brought  a  sensibility,  a  fervor,  and  an 
artistic  endowment  all  their  own." 

In  our  study  of  the  colonial  opposition  to  immigration  it 
is  necessary  that  we  consider  one  peculiar  class,  the  inden- 
tured servants  or  redemptioners.  They  were,  for  the  most 
part,  colonists  rather  than  immigrants,  although  many  were 
brought  from  countries  other  than  England.  Some  were 
brought  under  compulsion;  the  others  came  voluntarily. 
The  former  consisted  of  convicted  criminals  and  kidnaped 
persons;  the  latter  were  respectable  but  destitute  persons, 
who,  despairing  of  success  or  progress  in  the  old  country, 
sold  themselves  into  temporary  slavery,  usually  for  a  term 
of  five  years,  to  pay  their  passage  over.  Many  of  the  latter 
came  from  very  good  classes  of  society. 

While  there  were  many  of  these  "free-willers"  or  "redemp- 
tioners", yet  the  great  mass  of  unskilled  labor  necessary  to 
clear  the  forests  and  do  the  other  hard  work  so  plentiful  in 
a  pioneer  land  came  to  America  under  duress.  Boys  and 
girls  of  the  poorer  classes  were  hustled  on  board  ships  and 
virtually  sold  into  slavery  for  a  term  of  years.  Kidnaping 
or  "spiriting"  became  a  fine  art  under  Charles  II.  Slums 
and  alleys  were  raked  for  material  to  stock  the  plantations. 
Hard-hearted  men  sold  dependent  kinsfolk  to  serve  in  the 
colonies.  About  1670  no  fewer  than  ten  thousand  persons 
were  "spirited"  away  from  England  in  one  year.  One  kid- 
naper testified  in  1671  that  he  had  sent  five  hundred  per- 

"Orth,  S.  P.,  op.  cit.,  p.  16.  "Ross,  E.  A.,  op.  cii.,  p.  10. 


12 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


sons  a  year  to  the  colonies  for  twelve  years  and  another 
testified  that  he  had  sent  840  in  one  year.  The  government 
was  slow  to  strike  at  this  infamous  traffic;  for,  as  was  urged 
in  Parliament,  ''the  plantations  cannot  be  maintained  with- 
out a  considerable  number  of  white  servants." 

Transportation  of  the  idle  poor  was  another  common 
practice  of  the  day.  In  1663  an  Act  was  passed  by  Parlia- 
ment empowering  Justices  of  the  Peace  to  send  rogues,  va- 
grants, and  sturdy  beggars  to  the  colonies.  So  many  were 
sent  that  Dr.  Johnson  deemed  the  Americans  "a  race  of  con- 
victs", who  ''ought  to  be  content  with  anything  we  allow 
them  short  of  hanging".  In  the  first  century  of  the  colonies, 
gallows'-birds  were  often  given  the  option  of  servitude  in 
the  plantations.  Some  prayed  to  be  hanged  instead.  In 
1717  the  British  Government  entered  on  the  policy  of  penal 
transportation,  and  thenceforth  discharged  certain  classes 
of  felons  upon  the  colonies.  It  is  estimated  that  possibly 
as  many  as  fifty  thousand  criminals  were  sent  to  America 
from  the  British  Isles,  from  the  year  1717  until  the  practice 
was  ended  by  the  American  Revolution.  New  England 
escaped  these  "seven-year  passengers",  because  she  would 
pay  little  for  them  and  then  she  had  no  tobacco  to  serve  as 
a  profitable  return  cargo.  It  is  estimated  that  between  1750 
and  1770  twenty  thousand  British  convicts  were  exported 
to  Maryland  alone.  The  southern  colonies  received  a  much 
larger  number  of  indented  servants  of  all  classes  than  the 
northern  colonies,  as  the  semiplantation  character  of  the 
former  made  a  much  larger  demand  for  servile  labor  than 
the  farm  colonies  of  the  north. 

Ship  masters  made  an  enormous  profit  from  this  traffic, 
adding  as  much  as  100  percent,  of  the  actual  cost  of  trans- 
portation to  cover  risks.  As  a  rule  the  indentured  servants 
were  auctioned  ofi"  to  the  highest  bidder  at  a  public  auction. 
Adults  were  bound  out  for  a  term  of  three  to  six  years,  chil- 
dren from  ten  to  fifteen  years,  and  smaller  children  were, 
without  charge,  surrendered  to  masters  who  had  to  rear  and 
board  them.  The  lot  of  the  indentured  servant  was  not 
ordinarily  a  hard  one.   Here  and  there  masters  were  cruel 

"Fiske,  Old  Virginia  and  Her  Neighbors,  Vol.  II,  pp.  177  ff. 


COLONIAL  REGULATION  OF  IMMIGRATION  13 


and  inhuman.  But  in  a  new  country  where  hands  were  so 
few  and  work  so  abundant,  it  was  wisdom  to  be  tolerant  and 
humane.  Servants  who  had  worked  out  their  time  usually 
became  tenants  or  freeholders,  often  moving  to  other  colo- 
nies and  later  to  the  interior  beyond  the  fall  line,  where 
they  became  pioneers  in  their  turn. 

J/Most  of  the  colonies  bitterly  resented  such  cargoes,  but 
their  self-protective  measures  were  regularly  disallowed  by 
the  selfish  home  government.  As  long  as  they  were  colonies 
and  had  no  independent  standing,  their  opposition  could  be 
little  more  than  a  complaint.  Later,  however,  when  they 
became  independent,  it  became  a  matter  of  international 
I  relations. 

i  Virginia  received  its  share  of  human  chaff.  The  Council 
of  Virginia  early  complained  that  ^^it  hurteth  to  suffer  par- 
ents to  disburden  themselves  of  lascivious  sonnes,  masters 
of  bad  servants  and  wives  of  ill  husbands,  and  so  clogge  the 
business  with  such  an  idle  crue,  as  did  thrust  themselves  in 
the  last  voiage,  that  will  rather  starve  for  hunger,  than  lay 
their  hands  to  labor."  In  1637  the  collector  of  the  port  of 
London  averred  that  ''most  of  those  that  go  thither  ordi- 
narily have  no  habitation    .    .    .    and  are  better  out  than 

-within  the  kingdom." 

/    Colonial  legislation  to  protect  society  against  the  evils 

'  growing  out  of  the  introduction  into  this  country  of  foreign 
criminals  and  paupers,  commenced  simultaneously  with  the 
settlement  of  the  first  colonists.   As  early  as  1639  the  Pil- 

i  grim  settlers  of  Massachusetts,  at  Plymouth,  required  the 
removal  of  foreign  paupers.       Their  next  step  was  to 

I  require  indemnity  from  the  master.  The  same  power 
was  also  early  exercised  by  Virginia,  not  only  to  guard 

\  against  the  importation  of  paupers,  but  others.  So  it 
was  by  other  colonies.  Pennsylvania  had,  from  its  first  set- 
tlement, a  law  ''for  imposing  a  duty  upon  persons  convicted 
of  heinous  crimes  and  imported  into  the  Province,"  and 

Colonial  Charters,  1639  and  '92,  p.  252.    This  would  seem  to  be  the 
first  case  of  deportation  from  this  country. 
^''Statute  in  William  III,  Ch.  13. 
'        Tucker's  Edition,  Black  Comm.,  Vol.  II,  App.  33. 


14 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


another  ^'for  laying  a  duty  on  foreigners  and  Irish  servants, 
etc.;  imported  into  the  Province.''  These  were,  however, 
repealed  as  early  as  1729-30,  and  a  more  stringent  law  was 
passed  in  their  stead. 

The  middle  Atlantic  colonies,  especially  Pennsylvania, 
suffered  most  from  the  importation  of  paupers  and  crim- 
inals. Consequently,  in  this  colony  we  find  the  most  power- 
ful body  of  opinion  contrary  to  the  free  admission  of  aliens, 
and  the  most  frequent  and  stringent  measures  to  control  it. 
Many  of  the  stock  arguments  against  immigration  on  the 
grounds  of  pauperism,  criminality,  and  inability  for  self 
support  developed  during  this  period. 

We  have  already  noted  the  early  opposition  to  the  coming 
of  the  Scotch-Irish  and  the  Germans  in  such  large  num- 
bers. We  mentioned  also  a  few  laws  passed  to  protect  the 
colonies.  It  is  worth  while  for  us  to  analyze  these  and  other 
laws  further. 

The  act  passed  in  1722  in  Pennsylvania,  imposing  a  tax 
on  every  criminal  landed  and  making  the  ship  owner  re- 
sponsible for  the  good  conduct  of  his  passengers,  was  fol- 
lowed by  numerous  other  laws  designed  to  help  control 
the  immigration  situation.  One  of  the  earliest  instances 
of  the  use  of  the  non-assimilation  argument  that  resulted 
in  legislation  to  restrict  immigration  was  when  an  act  was 
passed  September  21,  1727,  in  Pennsylvania  at  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  colonial  governor,  who  feared  that  the  peace 
and  security  of  the  province  was  endangered  by  so  many 
foreigners  coming  in,  ignorant  of  the  language,  settling  to- 
gether and  making  a  separate  people,  or  as  we  would  say 
today,  a  foreign  colony.  'The  act  in  question  provided  that 
ship  masters  bringing  immigrants  must  declare  whether 
they  had  permission  from  the  court  of  Great  Britain  to  do 
so,  and  must  give  lists  of  all  passengers  and  their  inten- 
tions in  coming.  The  immigrants  must  take  the  oath  of 
allegiance  to  the  king,  and  of  fidelity  to  the  proprietary  of 
the  Province," 

^Dallas;  Edition  of  Laws  of  Pennsylvania,  Vol.  I,  p.  252. 
^Fairchild,  op.  dt.,  p.  45. 


COLONIAL  REGULATION  OF  IMMIGRATION  15 


It  seems  that  although  this  law  remained  in  force  for 
a  while,  it  was  virtually  a  dead  letter,  for  the  ship  masters 
did  not  get  the  required  license  to  bring  in  the  immigrants, 
and  yet  the  latter  were  always  admitted."^  v  Iii  order  '^to 
discourage  the  great  importation  and  coming  in  of  for- 
eigners and  of  lewd,  idle  and  ill-affected  persons  into  this 
province,  as  well  from  parts  beyond  the  seas  as  from  the 
neighboring  colonies," (a  tax  of  forty  shilling  was  laid  on 
each  immigrant  by  a  law  passed  in  1729  which  is  quite  an 
early  instance  of  the  use  of  a  head  tax  as  a  restrictive  meas- 
ure.-^ While  it  was  repealed  within  a  few  months  it  is 
an  evidence  of  a  colonial  hostility  to  certain  undesirable 
types  of  immigration./'  In  order  to  prevent  sick  and  dis- 
eased persons  (there  were  many  of  them)  from  entering 
the  colony,  a  law  was  passed  requiring  all  ships  to  anchor 
a  mile  from  the  city  until  inspected  by  the  port  physician. 
The  shipmaster  was  required  to  land  all  sick  persons 
found  on  board  at  a  suitable  distance  from  the  city  and  to 
convey  them  at  his  own  expense  to  houses  in  the  country 
prepared  for  them.^^  Efforts  were  also  made  to  check  the 
overcrowding  of  immigrants  in  ships,  both  for  humane 
reasons  and  in  order  to  reduce  the  number  of  immigrants. 
Facts  were  presented  to  show  that  whereas  the  German  im- 
portations were  at  first  of  good  class  and  people  of  sub- 
stance, now  they  were  the  refuse  of  the  country,  and  that 
''the  very  gaols  have  contributed  to  the  Supplies  we  are 
burdened  with." 

We  have  already  noted  that  thousands  of  criminals  were 
sent  to  Maryland.  On  account  of  this  practice,  the  general 
assembly  of  the  province  in  1676  passed  an  act  requiring  all 
shipmasters  to  declare  whether  they  had  any  convicts  on 
board,  the  purpose  being  to  prohibit  them  from  landing 
in  the  province.  A  fine  of  two  thousand  pounds  of  tobacco, 
half  to  go  to  the  Proprietary  and  half  to  the  informer,  was 
to  be  imposed  on  anyone  who  attempted  to  import  con- 

^  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  2:282ff. 

^  Proper,  E.  E.,  Colonial  Immigration  Laws,  p.  19. 

^  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  4 :  516. 


16 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


victs.^^  One  of  the  earliest  instances  of  bonding  shippers 
for  the  good  conduct  of  their  passengers  was  a  proclama- 
tion issued  December  9,  1676,  by  the  lieutenant  governor 
requiring  all  shipmasters  who  had  landed  convicts  previous 
to  the  time  this  act  went  into  effect,  to  deposit  a  bond  of 
£50  for  their  good  behavior.  Any  landed  without  this  bond 
were  to  be  imprisoned  until  it  was  paid.^''' 

In  addition  to  these  laws  against  paupers  and  criminals, 
most  of  the  colonies  passed  legislation  designed  to  prevent 
the  entrance  of  religious  sects  who  were  not  regarded  with 
favor.  Especially  was  this  true  of  New  England  whose 
religious  exclusiveness  eliminated  the  necessity  of  passing 
other  direct  restrictive  measures.  However,  an  exception 
to  this  was  Massachusetts  which  passed  an  elaborate  immi- 
gration law  in  1700  requiring  shipmasters  to  furnish  lists 
of  their  passengers,  and  prohibiting  the  introduction  of 
lame,  impotent  or  infirm  persons,  or  those  incapable  of 
maintaining  themselves,  except  on  security  that  the  town 
should  not  become  charged  with  them.  In  absence  of  this 
security,  shipmasters  were  compelled  to  take  them  back 
home.  The  statute  was  reenacted  with  amendments  from 
time  to  time. 2^ 

|'|During  the  seventeenth  and  the  early  part  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  when  the  Dutch,  Scandinavians,  Swiss,  Ger- 
mans and  French  were  settling  in  the  central  and  southern 
colonies,  Massachusetts  was  struggling  by  means  of  legis- 
lation to  maintain  its  puritan  commonwealth:^  If  this  was 
to  be  done,  every  stranger  must  be  regarded  with  suspicion 
and  distrust.  So  we  find  the  General  Court  in  1637  ordering 
that  no  town  or  person  in  the  colony  should  receive  or  en- 
tertain any  new  comer  for  longer  than  three  weeks  without 
permission  of  the  authorities.  The  severe  laws  passed  after 
1656  were  designed  to  prevent  the  coming  of  the  Quakers. 
These  laws  and  the  laws  against  the  French  Jesuits  un- 
doubtedly kept  out  not  only  many  Quakers,  but  other 

Archives  of  Maryland,  2:  540.  ""Ibil.,  15:  3C. 

^Proper,  E.  E.,  Colonial  Immigration  Laws,  Columbia  College  Studies, 
Vol.  XII,  No.  2,  p.  29. 


COLONIAL  REGULATION  OF  IMMIGRATION  17 


Protestants  from  Great  Britain  and  Western  Europe,  and 
Catholic  laymen  from  Ireland  and  the  Continent." 

The  class  most  discriminated  against  for  religious  reasons 
was  the  Roman  Catholic,^ ^  for  most  of  the  colonies  passed 
harsh  legislation  against  them.  Virginia,  and  all  the  New 
England  colonies  except  Rhode  Island,  had  laws  to  prevent 
the  Quai:ers  from  entering.^^  A  fine  of  £100  was  imposed 
on  an^^one  bringing  a  Quaker  into  Virginia,  and  those 
already  settled  there  were  ordered  to  depart  on  pain  of 
punishment.  Rhode  Island,  Pennsylvania  and  Maryland 
starred  on  the  basis  of  religious  tolerance.  However,  in 
Maryland  a  prejudice  against  Roman  Catholics  soon  mani- 
fested itself  and  found  expression  in  legislation.^^  One 
such  law  was  passed  in  1699,  being  entitled,  ''An  act  for 
Raising  a  Supply  toward  defraying  of  the  Publick  Charge  of 
this  Province  and  to  prevent  too  great  a  number  of  Irish 
Papists  being  imported  into  this  Province."  Massachusetts 
discouraged  the  coming  of  all  who  did  not  agree  with  her 
policy  of  ecclesiastical  domination.^^  Virginia,  whose 
founders  were  avowed  Episcopalians,  wanted  no  non- 
Conformists,  and  took  active  measures  to  enforce  this 
policy.^* .  Statutes  against  the  Catholic  immigration  vary 
in  purpose  from  absolute  prohibition  in  the  Puritan  colo- 
nies, to  petty  regulations  and  annoyances  as  practiced  in 
some  of  the  middle  colonies.  These  restrictions  took  the 
form  of  a  duty  on  Irish  Catholic  servants ;  a  positive  prohi- 
bition of  the  Roman  worship;  a  double  tax  on  their  lands; 
and  the  ''abjuration  oath",  which  practically  excluded  mem- 
bers of  this  faith,  unless  they  chose  to  break  their  vows.^^3- 
Virginia  prohibited  from  settling  in  the  Province  all  per- 
sons who  "affected  the  superstitions  of  the  Church  of 
Rome." 

From  what  has  been  written  it  is  evident  that  there  was 

^  Report  of  the  Massachusetts  Commission  on  Immigration  created  under 
an  Act  of  the  State  approved  May  2,  1913,  page  25. 
""Proper,  E.  E.,  op.  cit.,  p.  13.        ^Proper,  E.  E.,  op.  cit.,  pp.  25,  63. 
^'Proper,  E.  E.,  op.  cit.,  p.  13. 

^Winthrop,  Lije  and  Letters  oj  Gov.  Winthrop,  182. 

**Hening's  Statutes,  I,  155.  "'Proper,  E.  E.,  op.  cit..  p..  18. 


18 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


at  times  a  feeling  of  hostility  to  immigrants  even  in  colonial 
days,  especially  against  certain  religious  sects  and  against 
the  pauper  and  criminal  classes.  .  It  is  evident  also  tiiat  vir- 
tually all  of  the  colonies  received  their  share  of  human  chaff 
despite  their  vigorous  protests,  for  the  English  Government 
paid  little  attention  to  these  colonial  self -protective  meas- 
ures. But  the  important  thing  to  note  in  tracing-  tht  de- 
velopment of  opposition  to  immigration  is  that  many  of  the 
thoughtful  people  of  those  days  were  against  immigration 
even  when  there  was  land  in  abundance  and  opportunity 
beckoned  on  every  hand. 

It  is  astonishing  how  quickly  the  ''yellow  streak"  in  the 
population  faded.    Many  of  these  people  belonged  to  (hr 
class  of  the  unfortunate  rather  than  the  vicious  and  we: 
the  product  of  a  passing  state  of  society.    No  doubt  tlr 
worst  felons  were  promptly  hanged,  so  that  those  who  ■ 
transported — despite  the  protests  of  Virginia  and  the  oth 
colonies — were  such  as  excited  the  compassion  of  the  cou! 
in  an  age  that  recognized  nearly  three  hundred  capital 
offenses.    When  we  consider  the  fact  that  many  were  the 
victims  of  bad  surroundings  rather  than  born  malefactor- 
that  the  larceny  of  a  few  shillings  was  punishable  by  death 
and  that  many  of  the  victims  were  deported  because  ol 
religious  differences  and  political  offenses,  or  kidnaped  and 
brought  over  to  be  sold  as  indentured  servants,  then  the 
stigma  of  crime  is  erased.   Many  humane  judges  welcomed 
exile  as  an  alternative  to  the  death  penalty.   Under  the  re- 
generative stimulus  of  opportunity  many  of  these  persons 
reformed,  and,  therefore,  one  does  not  wonder  that  some  of 
these  transported  persons  rose  to  places  of  distinction  and 
honor  in  the  colonies  and  that  many  of  them  became  re- 
spected citizens.    Indeed,  Maryland  recruited  her  school 
masters  from  among  their  ranks.    Thus,  the  bad  strains 
tended  to  run  out,  and  in  the  making  of  our  people  the 
criminals  had  no  share  at  all  corresponding  to  their  original 
numbers.   It  was  easy  to  make  good  in  those  days  for  land 
was  plentiful,  labor  scarce  and  opportunity  beckoned  on 


COLONIAL  REGULATION  OF  IMMIGRATION  19 


every  hand.  But  today  the  immigrant's  labor  is  usually 
considered  no  more  than  any  other  commodity  to  be  bought 
at  the  lowest  price,  and  opportunity  is  like  a  jack-o-lantern 
or  like  the  pot  of  gold  at  the  foot  of  the  rainbow. 

It  is  also  important  to  note  that  out  of  this  colonial  oppo- 
sition to  immigration  most  of  the  stock  arguments  against 
unrestricted  immigration  were  developed,  and  some  of 
the  later  important  legislative  expedients  for  restriction, 
such  as  the  head  tax,  the  bonding  of  shippers,  the  exclusion 
of  paupers  and  criminals,  etc.,  were  put  into  practice.  One 
present-day  argument  against  immigration  was  not  then 
used,  viz.,  an  opposition  to  immigration  on  the  grounds  of 
the  economic  competition  of  the  newcomer  with  the  older 
residents,  which,  considering  the  economic  opportunity  of 
those  days,  is  self-explanatory. 

In  addition  to  noting,  as  we  did  at  the  opening  of  this 
chapter,  that  the  total  number  of  persons  coming  to  the 
colonies  during  this  period  was  slight  when  compared  to 
present  day  immigration,  it  is  also  necessary  to  point  out 
that  the  population,  while  containing  a  number  of  diverse 
elements,  was  still  predominantly  English  when  the  Revo- 
lution began,  and  that  those  who  were  not  English  were 
almost  wholly  from  races  closely  allied  to  the  English. 
These  were  principally  the  Dutch,  Swedes,  Germans,  and 
Scotch-Irish,  which  with  the  English,  as  Professor  Commons 
has  pointed  out,  ''were  less  than  two  thousand  years  ago 
one  Germanic  race  in  the  forests  surrounding  the  North 
Sea."  He  also  adds  the  significant  statement  that  ''It  is 
the  distinctive  fact  regarding  colonial  immigration  that  it 
was  Teutonic  in  blood  and  Protestant  in  religion."  "This 
Protestantism  was  important  because  of  the  type  of  mind 
and  of  character  that  Protestantism  at  that  day  represented. 
It  stood  for  independence  of  thought,  moral  conviction, 
courage,  and  hardihood." 

'    When  Father  Jogues  visited  New  Netherlands  in  1644  he 

Commons,  op.  cit.,  p.  27. 
"  Fairchild,  op.  cit.,  p.  54. 


20 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


found  that  eighteen  different  languages  were  spoken  in 
Manhattan.^^    In  New  Haarlem,  in  1661,  the  male  popu-  ; 
lation  consisted  of  Frenchmen,  Walloons,  Dutchmen,  Danes, 
Swedes,  and  Germans.   It  was  said  that  every  language  of  ; 
Europe  could  be  found  in  Pennsylvania.    Professor  Mc- 
Master,  writing  of  the  later  colonial  period,  says,  ^'Diverse 
as  the  inhabitants  of  the  states  were  in  occupations,  they  j 
were  not  less  diverse  in  opinions,  in  customs  and  in  habits.  ] 
.    .    .    Differences  of  race,  differences  of  nationality,  of  i 
religious  opinions,  of  manners,  of  tastes,  even  of  speech,  were 
still  distinctly  marked."    Yet  as  a  result  of  the  common  \ 
racial  character  of  the  migration,  assimilation  was  easy, 
quick,  and  complete  and  all  diversity  was  short-lived.  ' 
Thus,  "by  the  time  of  the  Revolution  there  was  a  definite 
American  population,  knit  together  by  over  two  centuries  j 
of  toil  in  the  hard  school  of  frontier  life,  inspired  by  com- 
mon political  purposes,  speaking  one  language,  worshipping 
one  God  in  divers  manners,  acknowledging  one  sovereignty, 
and  complying  with  the  mandates  of  one  common  law." 

In  summarizing  our  study  of  the  colonial  opposition  to 
immigration  we  are  forced  to  conclude  that  the  anti-  (jl 
immigration  laws  passed  by  the  colonial  legislatures  were, 
broadly  speaking,  very  meager  in  their  effect  as  restrictive  | 
or  prohibitive  measures.   Yet  to  preserve  the  ideals  which  m 
led  to  the  settlement  of  the  colonies,  it  seemed  to  many  of 
them  necessary  to  ascertain  carefully  the  character  of  the 
prospective  settlers  and  to  exclude  those  whom  they,  for 
any  reason,  deemed  unfit  to  become  associates  in  their  proj- 
ect. \  The  rigorous  measures  of  the  New  England  colonies 
practically  excluded  immigrants  from  other  nations  than 
England,  and  even  limited  those  from  the  mother  country  < 
to  persons  of  a  definite  political  and  religious  belief.   This  ' 
co^-onial  opposition  to  immigration  had  its  effect  in  the 
other  colonies  also,  for  it  not  only  kept  out  or  at  least 
checked  certain  undesirable  classes,  but  those  who  entered 

Father  Jogues,  Novum  Belgium  in  Jameson,  Narrative  of  New  Nether- 
lands, 1609-1664. 
'"Orth,  S.  P.,  op.  cit.,  p.  23. 


COLONIAL  REGULATION  OF  IMMIGRATION  21 


were  sometimes  forced  to  move  on  to  the  frontier.  It  must 
not  be  inferred  then  from  the  statement  that  the  results  of 
restriction  were  meager,  that  these  laws  were  therefore 
useless.  On  the  contrary,  they  were  an  important  factor 
in  the  development  of  colonial  life.  It  was  partly  on  ac- 
count of  these  restrictions  and  prohibitions  that  the  dif- 
ferent colonies  were  enabled  to  maintain  their  character- 
istic existence  and  preserve  their  political  and  religious 
ideal^,*^"^  One  commentator  has  expressed  the  view  that  ''it 
was  due  largely  to  these  very  measures  that  the  colonies, 
especially  Virginia  and  New  England,  have  given  to  this 
country  the  ideals  of  government  and  social  order  that 
have  made  America  what  she  is  today.  It  was  largely  he- 
cause  of  these  measures  that  there  has  been  a  Massa- 
chusetts and  a  Virginia." 

^''See  Proper,  E.  E.,  Colonial  Immigroiion  Laws. 


CHAPTER  II 


Opposition  to  and  Regulation  of  Immigration  1775-1882 

State  regulation  prior  to  1792 — Washington's  Policy  during  Revolutionary 
War — His  later  views — Views  of  Adams,  Franklin  and  Jefferson — Consti- 
tutional provisions  concerning  foreigners — Early  naturalization  Jaws — 
Alien  and  Sedition  Laws — Early  nineteenth  century  views — State  legislation 
— Resolutions  in  Congress — Pauper  and  criminal  immigration — Consular 
Reports — Other  causes  of  hostility  to  immigration — Riots  against  Catholics 
and  Germans — Native  Americanism — Presidential  elections  of  1844  and 
1852 — The  American  Party — Opposition  in  the  fifties — Obstacles  to  Fed- 
eral legislation. 

J// 

'^/'The  hostility  to  immigration  did  not  cease  with  the 
American  Revolution.  Many  of  the  commonwealths  con- 
tinued to  legislate  on  immigration  during  the  Revolu- 
tion and  after  peace  was  declared.  Massachusetts,  by  a 
law  in  1783,  prohibited  the  return  of  refugees,  and  so  did 
several  other  states.  The  first  naturalization  laws  passed 
by  Congress,  recognized  this  exercise  of  power  and  ex- 
pressly provided  that  such  persons  could  not  become 
naturalized  without  the  special  consent  of  those  states  which 
had  prohibited  their  return,^ 

On  September  16,  1788  the  Congress  of  the  old  Con- 
federation unanimously  adopted  the  following  resolution: 
''Resolved,  That  it  be,  and  it  is  hereby,  recommended  to 
the  several  states  to  pass  laws  for  preventing  the  transporta- 
tion of  convicted  malefactors  from  foreign  countries  into 
the  United  States."  ^ 

Pursuant  to  this  recommendation  of  the  Continental 
Congress,  the  states  passed  laws  in  conformity  therewith. 
Virginia  passed  a  law  on  November  13,  1788  forbidding 
masters  of  vessels  from  landing  convicts,  under  a  penalty 

*Acts  of  1790  and  '95,  U.  S.  Laws,  Vol.  I,  pp.  104,  415. 
'Journal  of  Congress  for  1788,  p.  867. 

22 


OPPOSITION  AND  REGULATION,  1775-1882  23 


of  fifty  pounds.  South  Carolina,^  Georgia  and  New  York 
passed  similar  laws  the  same  year.  Massachusetts  followed 
the  example  in  1791.  Pennsylvania  passed  an  act,  March 
27,  1789  providing  ''that  no  captain  of  a  vessel,  or  other 
person,  shall  knowingly  or  willingly  bring,  import,  or  send, 
or  so  cause  to  be,  or  be  aiding  or  assisting  therein,  into  this 
Commonwealth,  by  land  or  water,  any  felon,  convict,  or 
person  under  sentence  of  death,  or  any  other  disability, 
incurred  by  a  criminal  prosecution  or  who  shall  be  delivered, 
or  sent  to  him  or  her  from  any  prison  or  place  of  confine- 
ment in  any  place  out  of  the  United  States."  ^ 

During  the  Revolution  the  Continental  Congress  estab- 
lished the  policy  of  not  employing  any  but  native  born 
citizens  in  the  foreign  service  of  the  country.  The  same 
policy  was  pursued,  as  far  as  practicable,  by  Washington 
during  the  Revolution.  On  July  7,  1775  he  sent  out  the 
instruction  that  ''no  man  shall  be  appointed  as  a  sentry  who 
is  not  A  NATIVE  of  this  country."  On  July  10,  1775 
he  ordered  the  recruiting  service  "not  to  enlist  any  person 
who  is  not  an  American  born,  unless  such  person  has  a  wife 
and  family,  and  is  a  settled  resident  in  this  country."  On 
May  7,  1777  he  sent  word  to  Richard  Henry  Lee,  "It  is  by 
the  zeal  and  activity  of  our  own  people  that  the  cause 
must  be  supported,  and  not  by  a  few  hungry  adventurers." 
On  March  17,  1778  he  ordered  one  hundred  men  to  be 
chosen  and  annexed  to  the  guard  of  the  commander-in- 
chief.  In  his  orders  he  instructed  that  ''They  Must  Be 
American  Born/'  On  July  24,  1778,  he  wrote  to  Gouverneur 
Morris,  "I  do  most  devoutly  wish  that  we  had  not  a  single 
foreigner  amongst  us,  except  the  Marquis  de  Lafayette."  ^ 

After  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  in  his  first  annual 

'  Public  Laws  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina  to  the  Year  1790,  Inclusive, 
p.  464. 

*  Dallas,  Edition  of  Laws  of  Pennsylvania,  Vol.  II,  p.  692.  Or,  Pennsyl- 
vania's Statutes  at  Large  from  1682  to  1801,  XIII,  261-62. 

^The  policy  of  "America  for  Americans"  thus  seems  to  have  had  its 
origin  at  the  very  beginning  of  our  Independence.  The  term  itself  was  in 
common  use  prior  to  1850.  See  Sanderson,  J.  P.,  Republican  Landmarks, 
Ch.  39  (1856).  in  which  the  term  is  used  frequently.  See  also  page  334  of 
the  same  book.  Busey,  S.  C,  Immigration — Its  Evils  and  Consequences 
(1856),  should  likewise  be  read  in  this  connection. 


24 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


message  to  Congress,  Washington  said,  ''Various  considera- 
tions render  it  expedient  that  the  terms  on  which  foreigners 
may  be  admitted  to  the  rights  of  citizens,  should  be  speedily 
ascertained  by  a  uniform  rule  of  naturalization."  But  in 
regard  to  the  employment  of  foreign-born  citizens  in  the 
public  service,  he  does  not  seem  to  have  changed  the  views 
entertained  by  him  during  the  Revolution,  for  in  a  letter 
dated  January  20,  1790  to  J.  Q.  Adams  he  stated,  ''You 
know,  my  good  sir,  that  it  is  not  the  policy  of  this  govern- 
ment to  employ  foreigners  when  it  can  well  be  avoided, 
either  in  the  civil  or  military  walks  of  life."  Concerning 
immigration  itself.  President  Washington  wrote  to  John 
Adams,  November  17,  1794,  "My  opinion  with  respect  to 
immigration  is,  that  except  of  useful  mechanics  and  some 
particular  description  of  men  and  professions  there  is 
no  use  of  encouragement."  In  a  letter  to  Sir  John  St.  Clair, 
of  England,  he  declared  his  opposition  thereto  in  the  follow- 
ing very  positive  terms:  "I  have  no  intention  to  invite 
immigrants,  even  if  there  are  no  restrictive  acts  against 
it.  I  am  opposed  to  it  altogether."  Then  in  a  letter  to 
Patrick  Henry,  dated  October  9,  1795,  he  wrote,  "In  a 
word,  I  want  an  American  character,  that  the  powers  of 
Europe  may  be  convinced  we  act  for  ourselves  and  not  for 
others.  This,  in  my  judgment,  is  the  only  way  to  be  re- 
spected abroad  and  happy  at  home." 

John  Adams  entertained  similar  views.  In  a  letter  to 
Christopher  Gadsden  he  gives  expression  to  the  following 
sentiments :  "Foreign  meddlers,  as  you  properly  denominate 
them,  have  a  strange,  a  mysterious  influence  in  this  coun- 
try. Is  there  no  pride  in  American  bosoms?  .  .  .  The  plan 
of  our  worthy  friend,  John  Rutledge,  relative  to  the  admis- 
sion of  strangers  to  the  privileges  of  citizens,  as  you  explain 
it,  was  certainly  prudent.  Americans  will  find  that  their 
own  experience  will  coincide  with  the  experience  of  all 
other  nations,  and  foreigners  must  be  received  with  caution, 
or  they  will  destroy  all  confidence  in  government." 

Benjamin  Franklin,  writing  in  the  American  Museum 
for  the  year  1787,  stated  that  the  only  encouragements 


OPPOSITION  AND  REGULATION,  1775-1882  25 


I  which  this  government  holds  out  to  strangers  are  such  as 
i  are  derived  from  good  laws  and  liberty.    In  a  paper  read 
at  his  home  on  April  20,  1787,  the  author  pointed  out  that 
we  have  a  right  to  restrict  immigration  whenever  it  appears 
'6  likely  to  prove  hurtful  and  he  warned  the  states  against 
's  permitting  the  importation  of  criminals  from  European 
countries.    With  a  somewhat  unwarranted  optimism  he 
^  added,  ''It  is  now  not  likely  that  these  states  will  be  in- 
sulted with  transportations  of  this  sort,  directly  ordered 
from  any  other  sovereign  power." 
5  m  Although  the  author  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence 


1  and  of  the  liberal  naturalization  law  of  Virginia,  enacted  in 
May,  1779,  in  which  he  asserted  the  natural  right  of  ex- 
patriation, Thomas  Jefferson  was  opposed  to  immigration 
and  asserted  the  right  of  the  states  to  prohibit  and  regulate 
it.  That  immigration  was  full  of  menace  and  that  it  was 
considered  a  serious  problem  by  the  ''Sage  of  Monticello" 
is  evident  from  the  following  statements.  In  his  Notes 
on  Virginia,  first  printed  in  1782,  Jefferson  wrote  thus: 
I  "But  are  there  no  inconveniences  to  be  thrown  into  the 
i  scale  against  any  advantage  expected  from  a  multiplica- 
I  tion  of  numbers  by  the  importation  of  foreigners?  It  is 
for  the  happiness  of  those  united  in  society  to  harmonize 
I  as  much  as  possible  in  matters  which  of  necessity  they  must 
transact  together.  Civil  government  being  the  sole  object 
of  forming  societies,  its  administration  must  be  conducted 
by  common  consent.  Every  species  of  government  has  its 
specific  principles.  Ours,  perhaps,  are  more  peculiar  than 
those  of  any  other.  It  is  a  composition  of  the  freest  princi- 
ples of  the  English  Constitution  with  others  derived  from 
'  natural  right  and  natural  reason.  To  these  nothing  can 
be  more  opposed  than  the  maxims  of  absolute  monarchies. 
Yet,  from  such  we  are  to  expect  the  greatest  number  of 
immigrants.  They  will  bring  with  them  the  principles  of 
the  governments  they  leave,  or  if  able  to  throw  them 
off,  it  will  be  in  exchange  for  an  unbounded  licentiousness, 
passing,  as  usual,  from  one  extreme  to  the  other.  It  would 
be  a  miracle  were  they  to  stop  precisely  at  the  point  of 


26 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


temperate  liberty.  These  principles,  with  their  language, 
they  will  transmit  to  their  children.  In  proportion  to  their 
numbers,  they  will  share  legislation  with  us.  They  will 
infuse  into  it  their  spirit,  warp  or  bias  its  direction,  and 
render  it  a  heterogeneous,  incoherent,  distracted  mass."  ^ 

He  was  also  the  author  of  a  petition  to  the  Virginia 
Legislature,  presented  in  1797,  and  signed  by  citizens  of 
x\lbemarle,  Amherst,  Fluvanna,  and  Goochland  counties, 
praying  that  none  but  native  born  citizens  should  be  eligible 
as  jurors  in  grand  or  petty  civil  or  criminal  cases. 

On  another  occasion  he  wrote,  ''I  hope  we  may  find  some 
means  in  the  future  of  shielding  ourselves  from  foreign 
influence — political,  commercial,  or  in  whatever  form  at- 
tempted. I  can  scarcely  withold  myself  from  joining  in 
the  wish  of  Silas  Dean,  that  there  were  an  ocean  of  fire 
between  this  and  the  old  world!" 

While  minister  to  France,  in  1788,  he  wrote  a  letter  to 
Mr.  Jay,  in  which  he  stated,  "Native  citizens,  on  several 
valuable  accounts,  are  preferable  to  aliens,  or  citizens  alien 
horn.  ...  To  avail  ourselves  of  native  citizens,  it  appears 
to  me  advisable  to  declare  by  standing  law  that  no  person, 
but  a  native  citizen,  shall  be  capable  of  the  office  of  consul." 
Then  years  later  he  asks  'Vhether  it  is  desirable  for  us  to 
receive  the  dissolute  and  demoralized  handicraftsmen  of 
the  old  cities  of  Europe."  ^  Being  a  serious  advocate  of 
restriction,  Jefferson  merely  asserted  a  natural  right  of  emi- 
gration,— viz,  expatriation.  However,  being  the  leading 
advocate  of  state  rights  Jefferson  was  uncompromisingly 
hostile  to  legislation  by  the  Federal  government  on  the 
subject.  The  important  thing  to  note,  however,  is  that  he 
was  hostile  to  immigration  and  favored  restriction.^ 

It  would  seem  that  the  views  of  these  leaders  can  be 
taken  as  representative  of  the  prevailing  attitude  toward 
immigration  among  the  body  of  the  American  people  at 

'  Notes  on  Virginia,  152. 

Jefferson's  Writings,  Vol.  IX,  p.  453. 

"Letter  to  Lithpow,  January  4,  1805,  in  Works,  Vol.  II,  p.  270. 
"  Contrast  with  this  the  erroneous  views  set  forth  by  Mary  Antin  in  her 
little  book,  "They  Who  Knock  at  Our  Gates." 


OPPOSITION  AND  REGULATION,  1775-1882  27 


that  time.  The  debates  in  the  Constitutional  Convention 
of  1787  disclose  some  fear  of  the  political  influence  of  the 
foreign  settler.  These  fears  of  and  this  hostility  to  for- 
eigners found  expression  in  various  clauses  of  the  constitu- 
tion,* Article  I,  Section  2  of  the  constitution  specifies  that 
"No  person  shall  be  a  Representative  who  shall  not  have 
been  seven  years  a  Citizen  of  the  United  States."  Article 
I,  Section  3  states  that  ''No  person  shall  be  a  Senator  who 
shall  not  have  been  nine  years  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States."  A  naturalized  person  may  thus  become  a  Repre- 
sentative or  a  Senator  only  after  a  citizenship  of  seven  and 
nine  years  respectively.  Still  more  clearly  is  the  distrust 
of  the  foreigner  expressed  in  the  clause  in  Article  II  which 
debars  foreign-born  citizens  from  the  offices  of  President 
and  Vice-President.  It  reads,  ''No  Person  except  a  natural 
born  Citizen,  or  a  Citizen  of  the  United  States,  at  tlie  time 
of  the  Adoption  of  this  Constitution,  shall  be  eligible  to  the 
Office  of  President."  Another  reference  in  the  constitution 
to  the  subject,  which  we  shall  discuss  later,  is  Article  I, 
Section  9,  which  reads,  "The  Migration  or  Importation  of 
such  Persons  as  any  of  the  States  now  existing  shall  think 
proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the  Congress 
prior  to  the  Year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  eight, 
but  a  Tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such  Importation, 
not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each  Person." 

An  examination  of  the  history  of  Congressional  legisla- 
tion on  the  subject  of  the  naturalization  laws  must  satisfy 
everyone  that  the  statesmen  of  the  Revolution  did  not 
entertain  any  idea  that  aliens  had  an  absolute  right  to  par- 
ticipate in  the  highest  prerogatives  of  the  government,  but 
acted  on  the  subject  as  a  matter  of  expediency,  and  treated 
it  as  a  privilege  conferred.  The  period  of  residence  re- 
quired for  naturalization  was  set  at  two  years  by  the  Act  of 
1790,  but  this  was  raised  to  five  years  in  1795.  The  Act 
of  1798  required  a  residence  of  fourteen  years,  with  a  dec- 
laration of  intention  at  least  five  years  before  admission,  to 

*  See  Kapp,  F.,  "Immigration,"  Ch.  IX,  Immigration  as  Ajfccted  by 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  (1870). 


28 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


be  admitted  to  citizenship.   Aliens  arriving  in  the  United  !  i 
States  after  the  passage  of  the  act  had  to  be  registered.^^  |  i 
Those  who  were  enemies  could  never  become  citizens;  even 
those  who  were  proved  to  be  friends  were  compelled,  before 
taking  the  oath  of  citizenship,  to  produce  certificates  of  I 
registration  in  proof  of  residence  in  the  country  for  fourteen  : 
years.   However,  this  was  too  drastic  to  be  expedient,  so  at 
the  suggestion  of  President  Jefferson,  the  residence  was  ; 
reduced  by  the  naturalization  law  of  1802  to  five  years,  j 
With  this  one  exception,  there  was  from  the  passage  of  the 
first  act  in  1790  down  to  1824,  a  uniform  and  constant  ; 
advance  in  the  demands  of  the  laws  passed  by  Congress  on  I 
the  subject  upon  those  on  whom  they  authorized  the  privi-  : 
lege  of  citizenship  to  be  conferred.   From  these  laws  and  • 
from  the  discussion  connected  with  them  it  would  seem  , 
that  there  existed  at  that  time  a  sentiment  against  the  i 
alien  within  our  country.  \ 

During  the  consideration  of  the  bill  to  establish  a  uni- 
form rule  of  naturalization  in  1790  there  was  a  long  and  . 
animated  discussion  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  I 
which  the  views  of  most  of  the  leading  members  were 
elicited. The  discussion  arose  on  a  motion  made  by  i 
Thomas  T.  Tucker,  of  South  Carolina,  to  permit  aliens  to  j 
hold  lands  without  having  resided  any  definite  period  in  j 
the  country,  though  he  accompanied  his  motion  with  the  \ 
declaration  that  ''he  had  no  objection  to  extending  the  j' 
term  ...  to  three  years.''  { 

Roger  Sherman,  of  Connecticut,  one  of  the  framers  of  1 
the  Federal  Constitution,  said:  i 

''He  presumed  it  was  intended  by  the  Convention,  who  j 
framed  the  Constitution,  that  Congress  should  have  the 
power  of  naturalization,  in  order  to  prevent  particular  states 
receiving  citizens,  and  forcing  them  upon  others  who  would  » 
not  have  received  them  in  any  other  manner." 

James  Madison,  of  Virginia,  also  one  of  the  framers  of 
the  Constitution,  and  who  was  foremost  among  those  in 

"  Annals  of  Congress  of  1797-1799,  Vol.  II,  p.  1566. 
•   "Annals  of  Congress,  Vol.  I,  pp.  1146  to  1165.  ! 


OPPOSITION  AND  REGULATION,  1775-1882  29 

favor  of  liberal  legislation  for  citizens  of  foreign  birth, 
frankly  said,  'Vhen  we  are  considering  the  advantages  that 
may  result  from  an  easy  mode  of  naturalization,  we  ought 
also  to  consider  the  cautions  necessary  to  guard  against 
abuses."   He  concluded  his  remarks  as  follows: 

"I  should  be  exceedingly  sorry,  sir,  that  our  rule  of 
naturalization  excluded  a  single  person  of  good  fame  that 
really  meant  to  incorporate  himself  into  our  society;  on  the 
other  hand,  I  do  not  wish  that  any  man  should  acquire 
the  privilege,  but  such  as  would  be  a  real  addition  to  the 
wealth  or  strength  of  the  United  States." 

James  Jackson,  of  Georgia,  was  not  only  in  favor  of  a 
long  residence,  but  anxious  to  guard  against  the  admission 
of  improper  persons.    He  said: 

^'He  hoped  to  see  the  title  of  a  citizen  of  America  as 
highly  venerated  and  respected  as  a  citizen  of  old  Rome. 
I  am  clearly  of  opinion,  that  rather  than  have  the  common 
class  of  vagrants,  paupers,  and  other  outcasts  of  Europe, 
that  we  had  better  be  as  we  are,  and  trust  to  the  natural 
increase  of  our  population  for  inhabitants." 

Theodore  Sedgwick,  of  Massachusetts,  said: 

^'He  thought  Congress  might  use  their  discretion,  and 
admit  none  but  reputable  citizens,  such  only  were  fit  for 
the  society  into  which  they  were  blended." 

Pending  the  consideration  of  the  resolution  that  later 
resulted  in  the  Naturalization  Act  of  1798,  an  animated 
debate  resulted.^-  Mr.  Harper,  of  Maryland,  moved  as 
follows:  ^That  provision  ought  to  be  made  by  law  for  pre- 
venting any  person  becoming  entitled  to  the  rights  of  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States,  except  by  birth." 

H.  G.  Otis,  of  Massachusetts,  said: 

''He  himself  had  not  the  smallest  doubt  as  to  the  con- 
stitutionality of  restricting  aliens  in  the  way  proposed.  He 
believed  that  Congress,  could,  if  they  thought  proper,  make 
a  residence  of  forty  or  fifty  years  necessary  before  an  alien 
should  be  entitled  to  citizenship,  which  would  extend  to  the 
whole  life  of  a  person,  and  prove  an  effectual  exclusion." 

"Annals  of  Congress  of  1797-99,  Vol.  II,  p.  1568  to  1580. 


30 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


Samuel  Sitgreaves,  of  Pennsylvania,  said: 
''They  might  avoid  any  constitutional  embarassment  by 
extending  the  time  of  residence  of  aliens  so  far  as  to  pre- 
vent them  from  ever  becoming  citizens,  by  which  means 
persons  who  could  not  be  considered  as  having  a  common 
interest  with  the  citizens  of  the  country,  would  be  effectu- 
ally excluded  from  holding  offices  in  the  government." 
^James  A.  Bayard,  of  Delaware,  said: 

"Aliens  cannot  be  considered  as  members  of  the  society 
of  the  United  States;  our  laws  are  passed  on  the  ground 
of  our  policy,  and  whatever  is  granted  to  aliens  is  a  mere 
matter  of  favor;  and,  if  it  is  taken  away,  they  have  no  right 
to  complain." 

Following  the  passage  of  the  Naturalization  Act  of  1802 
various  efforts  were  made  to  amend  the  law  so  as  ''to 
secure  more  effectually  to  the  native  citizens  the  right  of 
government."  Such  a  memorial  was  presented  to  the  second 
session  of  the  twenty-fifth  Congress  by  John  M.  Patton,  of 
Virginia,  from  the  Native  American  Association  of  Wash- 
ington City,  signed  by  nearly  a  thousand  persons.^^ 

A  bill  introduced  into  the  first  session  of  the  twenty-sixth 
Congress  by  A.  C.  Hand,  of  New  York,^^  and  another  in- 
troduced August  1,  1842  by  J.  P.  Walker  of  Wisconsin,^® 
came  to  naught. 

Though  he  himself  was  opposed  to  it,  on  June  1,  1844 
James  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania,  presented  in  the  Senate 
a  memorial  from  the  citizens  of  Philadelphia,  which  would 
have  amended  the  naturalization  laws  to  require  all  foreign- 
ers to  reside  twenty-one  years  in  the  country  before  admit- 
ting them  to  the  same  privileges  as  native  citizens. 

On  June  7,  1844  Senator  W.  S.  Archer,  of  Virginia,  in 
presenting  a  similar  petition,  said: 

"There  was,  he  thought,  a  growing  combination  of  cir- 
cumstances, which  furnished  ample  ground  for  the  con- 

"  Great  use  has  been  made  of  such  a  defense  for  restriction  of  immigra- 
tion in  recent  years. 
"Congressional  Globe  1837-8,  p.  187. 
"Congressional  Globe  1840-41;  pp.  23,  36,  41. 
"Congressional  Globe  1841-42;  p.  817. 


OPPOSITION  AND  REGULATION,  1775-1882  31 


'  elusion,  that  the  great  mass  of  uneducated  foreigners,  wholly 
ignorant  of  the  nature  and  value  of  our  institutions,  an- 
nually pouring  into  the  country,  could  not,  within  the  short 

:  period  of  five  years,  fixed  by^the  present  law,  become  fit  to 
exercise,  with  a  due  sense  of  their  value  and  responsibility, 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  native  born  citizens.  The  pre- 
mature exercise  of  such  rights  had  grown  to  an  evil  of  great 
magnitude,  of  which  there  had,  unhappily,  but  too  recently, 

I  been  a  painful  demonstration." 

I     At  the  second  session  of  the  twenty-eighth  Congress 
1  various  ineffectual  efforts  were  made  in  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives to  secure  amendments  to  the  naturalization 
laws.^^ 

'  During  the  early  part  of  the  same  session,  Henry  John- 
son of  Louisiana,  speaking  in  the  Senate  in  favor  of  a  reso- 
lution he  had  introduced  to  modify  the  naturalization  laws 
so  as  to  extend  the  time  for  foreigners  to  become  citizens, 
to  prevent  frauds,  etc.,  said: 

''It  is,  indeed,  a  lamentable  fact,  that  most  of  the  for- 
i  eigners  who  immigrate  to  this  country  are  profoundly 
ignorant  of  the  nature  of  the  government  and  of  its  politi- 
cal institutions,  and  are  mere  instruments  in  the  hands  of 
designing  men,  to  be  used  at  the  elections  for  the  most 
corrupt  purposes — All  parties  are  equally  interested  in 
guarding  against  a  repetition  of  the  abuses  complained  of, 
which,  if  not  prevented  in  the  future,  may  ultimately  de- 
stroy our  government." 

In  November,  1844  Daniel  Webster  addressed  a  meeting 
of  the  Whigs  of  Boston  in  which  he  took  ground  in  favor 
of  an  alteration  of  the  naturalization  laws.^^  He  said: 

'The  result  of  the  recent  elections,  in  several  States,  has 
impressed  my  mind  with  one  deep  and  strong  conviction; 
that  is,  that  there  is  an  imperative  necessity  for  reform- 
ing the  naturalization  laws  of  the  United  States.  The 
preservation  of  the  government,  and  consequently  the  in- 

"  Congressional  Globe  1843-44,  p.  658. 
"Congressional  Globe  1844-45,  pp.  64,  150. 
i    "  Niles  Register,  Vol.  LXVII,  p.  172. 


32 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


terest  of  all  parties,  in  my  opinion,  clearly  and  strongly 
demand  this.  .  .  .  Fellow  citizens,  I  profess  to  be  a  lover 
of  human  liberty.  But  I  profess  my  heart,  my  reputation, 
my  pride  of  character,  to  be  an  American." 

The  evidence  presented  by  these  memorials,  bills, 
speeches,  etc. — nor  have  all  of  them  been  mentioned  here, — 
from  all  sections  of  the  country  and  made  by  the  leading 
men  of  the  day,  seems  to  indicate  that  a  considerable  ele- 
ment of  the  population  was  gravely  concerned  over  the 
problems  that  had  resulted  from  immigration  into  the 
country  prior  to  1850. 

The  Alien  and  Sedition  laws  passed  in  1798  during 
the  administration  of  John  Adams,  bear  further  testi- 
mony to  the  hostility  felt  toward  the  alien.  Under  the 
Alien  Law,  the  President  of  the  United  States  was  in- 
vested with  power  to  send  away  all  such  aliens  as  he  judged 
dangerous  to  the  peace  and  safety  of  the  country,  or  had 
reasons  to  think  were  hatching  treason  or  laying  plots 
against  the  Government.  Imprisonment  for  three  years 
and  deprivation  of  the  privilege  to  become  a  citizen  were 
the  punishments  provided  for  anyone  so  ordered  to  depart 
who  was  found  at  large  without  a  license  to  remain.  Those 
thus  punished  were  also  subject  to  removal  from  the  coun- 
try on  the  order  of  the  President,  and  if  they  voluntarily 
returned  they  could  be  reimprisoned  for  such  time  as  the 
President  thought  the  public  good  required.  In  order  that 
no  alien  might  escape,  sea  captains  were  to  make  reports 
in  writing  of  the  names,  ages,  and  places  of  birth  of  all 
foreigners  brought  over  in  their  ships.  This  act  was  a 
result  of  transitory  unsettled  conditions,  particularly  the 
expectation  of  a  war  with  France,  and  contained  a  pro- 
viso that  it  should  expire  two  years  after  passage.  But  it 
contains  an  important  permanent  principle  which  has  been 
made  much  of  in  recent  years,  viz.  the  right  of  deporta- 
tion.-^ 

Even  more  stringent  than  these  laws  was  another  en- 

*  Every  standard  American  History  deals  at  length  with  the  Alien  and 
Sedition  Laws. 


OPPOSITION  AND  REGULATION,  1775-1882  33 


!  acted  in  the  same  year  which  gave  to  the  President  the 
right,  in  case  of  war  declared  or  invasion  threatened,  to 
seize,  secure,  or  send  away  all  resident  aliens,  whether 
natives  or  adopted  citizens,  of  the  hostile  nation. 

^'When  we  recall  the  conditions  existing  at  the  time  of  the 
passage  of  the  Alien  and  Sedition  Acts — a  young  Republic 
with  a  new  form  of  government  surrounded  by  avowed  and 
hostile  enemies — perhaps  there  was  some  justification  for 
I  this  severe  attitude  toward  foreigners  in  the  country,  which 
jthe  Federal  Government  adopted  at  the  outset."  How- 
ever, the  important  thing  to  note  in  this  connection  is  that 
present  day  hostility  to  immigration  is  not  a  new  thing.  The 
views  and  statutes  to  which  we  have  referred  have  given 
tone  and  color  to  much  of  the  opposition  that  has  mani- 
fested itself  from  then  to  the  present  day.  Historical  facts 
thus  seem  to  refute  the  contentions  of  the  past  and  present 
advocates  of  unrestricted  immigration  that  we  have  always 
welcomed  the  immigrant  with  outstretched  arms. 

That  most  of  this  early  feeling  of  opposition  to  the  influx 
of  foreign  elements  was  due  to  an  anticipation  of  political 
dangers  is  evident  from  the  following  statements.  When  a 
proposal  was  made  in  1804  in  Connecticut  to  extend  the 
franchise,  it  brought  from  the  Federalists  the  charge  that 
''Never  yet  has  an  extension  of  the  franchise  failed  to  bring 
with  it  those  triple  horrors :  Catholic,  Irishmen,  and  Demo- 
cratic rule."  ''Give  to  every  man  a  vote  and  the  ports  of 
Connecticut  would  be  crowded  with  ships  swarming  with 
patriots  and  rapparees  fresh  from  the  bogs  of  Erin,  elec- 
tions would  be  decided  by  the  refuse  of  jails  and  gibbets, 
and  factious  men  from  Ireland  would  inflict  on  Connecticut 
just  such  a  government  as  they  had  already  inflicted  on 
Delaware,  on  Pennsylvania,  on  New  York." 

The  Hartford  Convention  in  1814  desired  to  make  every 
person  thereafter  naturalized  ineligible  to  hold  any  civil 
office  under  the  federal  government.  The  Convention  held 
that  the  population  of  the  United  States  was  then  "amply 

"Warne,  The  Tide  of  Immigration,  p.  236. 

"^McMaster,  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  192. 


34 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


sufficient  to  render  this  nation  in  due  time  sufficiently  great 
and  powerful." 

In  1807  immigrants  were  characterized  as  "the  vagabonds 
and  wandering  felons  of  the  universe"  and  ''hordes  of  vulgar 
Irish  scarcely  advanced  to  the  threshold  of  civilization,  all 
the  outcast  villains,  all  the  excrescences  of  gouty  Europe" 
who  descend  upon  our  shores  and  through  naturalization 
are  outw^ardly  transformed  ''from  aliens  to  natives — from 
slaves  to  citizens." 

On  July  4,  1815,  James  Buchanan  delivered  an  oration  ' 
in  the  city  of  Lancaster  upon  the  subject  of  foreign  influ- 
ence and  upon  the  policy  that  the  United  States  ought  to. 
pursue  toward  foreign  nations,  in  which  he  said,  "Above  all,  - 
we  ought  to  drive  from  our  shores  foreign  influence,  and 
cherish  exclusively  American  feelings.    Foreign  influence 
has  been  in  every  age,  the  curse  of  republics." 

William  H.  Crawford,  while  Secretary  of  War  under  the 
administration  of  James  Madison,  made  a  report  on  Indian 
Affairs  in  March,  1816,  in  which  he  stated,  "It  will  redound 
more  to  the  national  honor  to  incorporate,  by  a  humane  | 
and  benevolent  policy,  the  natives  of  our  forests  in  the  ! 
great  American  family  of  freedom,  than  to  receive,  with  i 
open  arms,  the  fugitives  of  the  old  world,  whether  their  | 
flight  has  been  the  effect  of  their  crimes  or  their  virtues."  ! 
The  expression  of  these  sentiments  caused  him  to  be  made  ; 
the  object  of  bitter  assault  from  the  foreigners  and  it  was  j 
believed  at  the  time,  mainly  defeated  his  nomination  for  the 
Presidency  in  favor  of  Monroe.   Thus  did  foreign  influence 
make  itself  felt  early  in  our  political  history  as  a  Republic.  ' 

In  a  letter  addressed  to  Dr.  Coleman,  dated  August  26, 
1824,  General  Jackson  wrote,  "In  short,  sir,  we  have  been  ! 
too  long  subject  to  the  policy  of  British  merchants.  It  is  li 
time  we  should  become  a  little  more  Americanized,  and  in- 
stead of  feeding  paupers  and  laborers  of  England,  feed  our 
own;  or  else,  in  a  short  time,  by  continuing  our  present 
policy,  we  shall  be  paupers  ourselves." 

With  the  growth  of  manufactures,  there  arose  a  demand  ' 

Warne,  op.  cit.,  p.  237. 


OPPOSITION  AND  REGULATION,  1775-1882  35 


for  laborers,  particularly  skilled  laborers,  who  knew  the 
technique  of  industry.  Since  it  was  extremely  difficult  to 
persuade  any  great  number  of  Americans  to  forego  the 
possibility  of  becoming  independent  landowners  and  culti- 
vators in  order  to  become  hired  workers  in  somebody  else's 
factory,  there  arose  a  demand  for  foreign  artisans.  Despite  , 
this  demand  from  the  manufacturers,  various  states  passed 
laws  after  1820  to  restrict  at  least  certain  types  of  immi- 
grants.^^  ' 

New  York  passed  on  February  11,  1824,-^  "an  act  con- 
cerning passengers  in  vessels  coming  to  the  port  of  New 
York."  It  provided  ''that  every  master  or  commander  of 
any  ship  or  other  vessel  arriving  at  the  port  of  New  York ' 
from  any  country  out  of  the  United  States,  or  from  any 
other  of  the  United  States  than  this  state,  shall  within 
twenty-four  hours  after  the  arrival  of  such  ship  or  vessel 
in  the  said  port,  make  a  report  in  writing,  on  oath  or 
affirmation,  to  the  Mayor  of  the  City  of  New  York,  or  to 
the  recorder  of  the  said  city,  of  the  name,  place  of  birth, 
and  last  legal  settlement,  age  and  occupation  of  every  per- 
son who  shall  have  been  brought  as  a  passenger  in  such 
ship  or  vessel  on  her  last  voyage  from  any  country  out  of 
the  United  States  into  the  port  of  New  York,  and  from 
any  of  the  United  States,  other  than  this  state.  ...  It 
shall  be  lawful  for  the  said  mayor  or  recorder  to  require 
every  such  master  or  commander  of  any  such  ship  or  vessel 
to  be  bound  with  two  sufficient  sureties,  not  exceeding 
three  hundred  dollars  for  each  passenger  not  being  a  citizen 
of  the  United  States.  .  .  .  Every  person  not  being  a  citizen 
of  the  United  States,  who  shall  enter  the  said  city  with 
the  intention  of  residing  therein,  shall  within  twenty-four 
hours  thereafter  make  a  report  of  himself  in  writing,  on 
oath  or  affirmation,  to  the  mayor,  or  to  the  recorder  of  the 

"If  the  absence  of  governmental  efforts  to  regulate  and  control  immigra- 
tion may  be  called  a  policy  of  "free"  immigration,  then  it  would  seem,  ac- 
cording to  Fairchild,  that  this  policy  ended  at  this  time  when  the  states 
began  to  legislate  on  the  subject  under  their  police  powers.  See  Fairchild, 
Immigration,  pp.  31-32;  also  quoted,  ante,  Chapter  I. 

-    New  York  Laws,  1824,  Ch.  37. 


36 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


said  city,  stating  his  name,  age,  and  occupation,  the  name 
of  the  ship  or  vessel  in  which  he  arrived,  the  time  and 
place  when  and  where  he  landed,  and  the  name  of  the  com- 
mander of  such  ship  or  vessel,  under  the  penalty  of  one  : 
hundred  dollars." 

In  like  manner  Massachusetts  had  passed  ^'an  act  to  i 
prevent  the  introduction  of  paupers  from  foreign  ports  or  ; 
places"  on  February  25,  1820.-^    Under  this  law  she  also 
required  from  the  master  of  the  vessel  a  list  of  the  names 
and  places  of  residence  of  all  passengers.   He  was  likewise 
compelled  to  give  bond  with  sufficient  sureties  of  any  pas- 
sengers liable  to  become  chargeable  for  their  support  to  ; 
the  commonwealth,  the  bond  not  to  exceed  five  hundred,.; 
dollars  for  each  passenger. 

Maryland  passed  ^'an  act  relating  to  the  importation  of 
passengers,  March  22,  1833."  This  law  contained  similar 
provisions.  There  was  a  requirement  that  the  master  of 
the  vessel  give  to  the  mayor  or  register  of  Baltimore,  within 
twenty-four  hours,  a  list  containing  the  name,  age,  and 
occupation  of  every  alien  brought  in.  The  master  of  the 
vessel  had  the  option  of  paying  in  a  dollar  and  a  half  for 
each  alien  or  of  giving  two  sufficient  sureties,  to  be  ap- 
proved by  the  mayor  or  register,  for  a  sum  not  exceeding  \ 
one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  for  each  passenger. 

In  these  various  ways  various  states  undertook  to  check 
immigration  and  to  eliminate  the  undesirable  classes.^ ^  That 
such  undesirable  classes  were  getting  in,  despite  these  laws, 
is  evident  from  the  records  of  those  days,  and  the  evils 
resulting  therefrom  soon  stirred  the  native  population  to 
new  efforts. 

The  exportation  of  convicts  and  paupers  into  the  United 
States  by  some  of  the  European  governments  had  as  early 
as  1836  created  evils  that  were  so  seriously  felt  in  many  of 

Massachusetts  Laws,  1820,  Chap.  290. 

Maryland  State  Laws,  1833,  Chap.  303. 
^See  Abbott,  "Historical  Aspects  of  the  Immigration  Problem"  (1926) 
for  many  select  documents  relatini?  io  the  subject  matter  of  this  chapter. 
See  also  Bromwcll,  W.  J.,  History  of  Immigration  to  the  United  States^ 
pp.  198  ff.  (1856), 


OPPOSITION  AND  REGULATION,  1775-1882  37 


our  large  cities  that  the  municipal  authorities  of  Boston, 
iNew  York,  Baltimore  and  New  Orleans  were  forced  to  take 
I  steps  to  guard  against  it. 

In  Massachusetts  the  subject  was  brought  up  in  the  leg- 
islature in  1836,  which,  after  some  consideration,  adopted 
the  following:  ^^Resolved,  That  it  is  expedient  to  instruct 
our  Senators,  and  request  our  Representatives  in  Congress 
to  use  their  endeavors  to  obtain  the  passage  of  a  law  to 
prevent  the  introduction  of  foreign  paupers  into  this  coun- 
try, and  to  favor  any  other  measures  which  Congress  may 
i  be  disposed  tdk  adopt  to  effect  this  object." 

This  resolution  was  presented  in  the  United  States  Senate 
May  2,  1836,  by  John  Davis,  who  availed  himself  of  the 
occasion  to  submit  some  startling  facts  on  the  subject.^^ 
The  following  are  extracts  from  it: 

^Tn  1833  the  King  appointed  a  commission,  with  large 
powers,  to  collect  evidence  and  report  to  Parliament  (on 
pauperism).  .  .  .  The  commissioners  discovered  that  some 
of  the  parishes  had,  of  their  own  accord,  and  without  any 
authority  in  law,  adopted  the  plan  of  ridding  themselves 
of  the  evil  by  persuading  the  paupers  to  immigrate  to 
this  side  of  the  Atlantic.  And  whom,  Mr.  President,  did 
they  send?  The  most  idle  and  vicious;  furnishing  them 
with  money,  besides  paying  their  passage,  and  then  leaving 
them  on  this  continent,  either  to  reform  or  to  rely  on  the 
I  people  here  for  support.  The  commissioners  strongly  rec- 
ommended to  Parliament  to  adopt  it,  and  to  authorize  the 
parishes  to  raise  money  by  taxes  for  this  purpose.  They 
proposed,  too,  that  the  most  idle,  debauched,  and  corrupt — 
the  incurable  portion — should  be  selected  for  this  purpose, 
while  the  better  portion  should  be  left,  to  be  reclaimed 
when  detached  from  the  force  of  evil  counsel  and  evil 
example.  .  .  .  Pauper  immigrants  have  been  repeatedly 
1  found  in  the  House  of  Industry  in  Boston,  with  the  very 
money  received  from  the  parish  concealed  about  them, 
and  in  some  instances,  to  prevent  detection,  sewed  in  their 
clothes.  Out  of  866  persons  received  into  that  place  during 


Congressional  Debates  of  1835-6,  Vol.  XII,  part  2,  p.  1378. 


38  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 

the  last  year,  516  were  foreigners.  .  .  .  Massachusetts  has 
attempted  to  modify  the  evil  by  countervailing  legislation, 
by  requiring  bonds  from  the  masters  of  vessels  bringing 
foreign  passengers,  conditioned  that  for  a  period  they  shall 
not  become  chargeable  to  the  public.  This,  however,  proves 
inadequate.  .  .  . 

''Now,  sir,  is  it  just?  Is  it  morally  right  for  Great  Britain 
to  attempt  to  throw  upon  us  this  oppressive  burden  of  sus- 
taining her  poor?  Shall  she  be  permitted  to  legislate  them 
out  of  the  kingdom,  and  to  impose  on  us  a  tax  for  their 
support,  without  an  effort  on  our  part  to  countervail  such 
a  policy?  Would  it  not  be  wronging  our  own  virtuous  poor 
to  divide  their  bread  with  those  who  have  no  just  or  natural 
claims  upon  us?  And  above  all,  sir,  shall  we  fold  our  arms 
and  see  this  moral  pestilence  sent  among  us  to  poison  the 
public  mind  and  do  irremediable  mischief?" 

During  the  summer  of  1837  the  city  councils  of  Boston 
directed  the  then  Mayor  to  confer  with  other  municipal 
authorities  on  the  subject  with  a  view  of  effecting  their 
cooperation  in  memorializing  Congress  for  some  remedial 
legislation  to  arrest  the  growing  evil.^^  In  Baltimore  the 
same  evil  was  experienced  to  an  alarming  extent  at  the 
same  time.  A  ship  load  of  260  Hessian  convicts  were 
brought  into  port  with  manacles  and  fetters  remaining  on 
their  hands  and  feet  until  within  the  day  of  their  arrival. 
Mayor  Smith  was  informed  by  the  authorities  at  Washing- 
ton that  there  was  no  remedy,  and  so  he  had  to  permit  the 
convicts  to  be  landed,  and  turned  loose  to  prey  upon 
society.^  ^ 

In  a  Baltimore  paper  for  July  3,  1830,  we  find  an  edi- 
torial,^^ from  which  the  following  are  extracts: 

''Infamous  conduct! — The  ship  'Anacreon'  arrived  at 
Norfolk  last  week  from  Liverpool,  with  168  passengers, 
three-fourths  of  whom  were  transported  English  paupers! 
And  a  great  part  of  these  are  from  50  to  60  years  of  age — 
some  older!  ...  If  there  was  barbarity  enough  in  the 

'"Niles'  Register,  Vol.  LV,  p.  46.  Ibid.,  Vol.  LV,  p.  44. 

''Ibid.,  Vol.  XXXVIII,  p.  335. 


OPPOSITION  AND  REGULATION,  1775-1882  39 

United  States  to  ship  off  our  old  worn-out  negroes  to  Eng- 
land, by  cargoes,  would  their  landing  be  permitted?  We 
would  not  be  cruel — but  must  resist,  to  the  utmost  possible 
point,  such  infamous  speculations  on  our  pockets.  John 
Bull  has  squeezed  the  orange,  but  insolently  casts  the  skins 
in  our  faces.  .  .  .  The  landing  of  such  must  be  prevented; 
and  we  trust  that  the  general  assembly  of  Maryland  will 
adopt  some  strong  regulations  on  the  subject,  and  prevent 
the  taxation  of  the  good  people  of  this  state  for  the  support 
of  the  British  government." 

An  investigation  by  the  municipal  government  of  New 
York  City  in  1837  disclosed  the  fact  that  60,541  passengers 
arrived  in  New  York  that  year  and  that  the  almshouse 
was  full,  containing  3,074  persons,  of  whom  three-fourths 
were  foreigners.  The  report  to  the  Mayor  stated,  'Tn  fact 
our  public  charities  are  principally  for  the  benefit  of  these 
foreigners;  for  of  1,209  persons  admitted  into  the  hospital 
at  Bellevue,  982  were  aliens." 

A  memorial  of  the  corporation  of  the  city  of  New  1  ork, 
January  25,  1847,  stated  that  within  the  last  year  the  ships 
^'Sardinia"  and  ''Atlas"  from  Liverpool  arrived  in  New  York, 
one  with  294  and  the  other  with  314  steerage  passengers, 
all  paupers,  sent  by  the  parish  of  Groszimmern,  Hesse 
Darmstadt,  to  which  they  belonged  and  by  which  their  ex- 
penses were  paid.  Two  hundred  and  thirty-four  of  these 
immigrants  eventually  found  their  way  into  the  New  York 
almshouse.^^ 

On  January  19,  1839,  Niles'  Register  reported  a  crowd  of 
paupers  which  had  arrived  in  New  York  from  England, 
whose  passage  had  been  paid  by  the  overseers  of  the  poor 
at  Edinburgh.  The  majority  of  them  were  still  wearing 
the  uniform  of  the  poorhouse.  This  resulted  in  such  serious 
objections  that  the  consignees  of  the  vessel  finally  agreed 
to  take  them  back  to  Europe  and  to  reimburse  the  city  for 
the  expenses  incurred  on  their  account. 

Other  numbers  of  the  Register  contain  similar  instances. 
In  fact  the  situation  was  getting  serious  for  many  cities. 

''Executive  (House)  Doc,  29th  Cong.,  2nd  Ses.,  54. 


40 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


The  evils  attendant  upon  immigration  unregulated  by  the 
Federal  Government  made  themselves  felt  to  such  an  extent 
that  on  July  4,  1836,  the  United  States  Senate  passed  a 
resolution  directing  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  col- 
lect such  facts  as  could  be  obtained  respecting  the  deporta- 
tion of  paupers  from  Great  Britain  and  other  places,  ''ascer- 
taining, as  nearly  as  possible,  to  what  countries  such  per- 
sons are  sent,  where  landed  and  what  provision,  if  any,  is 
made  for  their  future  support/' 

On  April  30,  1838,  the  House  of  Representatives  adopted 
this  resolution:  ''Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the 
United  States  be  requested  to  communicate  to  this  House 
copies  of  all  correspondence  and  communications  which 
have  passed  between  this  and  any  foreign  governments, 
and  the  officers  and  agents  thereof,  relating  to  the  intro- 
duction of  foreign  paupers  into  the  United  States;  also, 
what  steps,  if  any,  have  been  taken,  to  prevent  the  intro- 
duction of  such  paupers  into  the  United  States;  provided 
such  communication  is  not  incompatible  with  the  interests 
of  the  United  States." 

In  reply  to  this  request,  President  Van  Buren  forwarded 
a  number  of  documents  to  Congress,  from  which  the  fol- 
lowing extracts  are  taken.^* 

From  the  consulate  of  the  United  States,  Kingston,  Ja- 
maica, June  28,  1831:  "I  was  called  upon  yesterday  by 
most  of  the  masters  of  American  vessels  now  in  this  port, 
who  complained  of  a  law  which  obliges  all  foreign  vessels 
under  one  hundred  tons  to  take  a  pauper,  or  such  other 
person  that  it  may  be  desirable  to  get  rid  of,  on  board,  and 
carry  him  or  them  off  the  island ;  and  those  above  that  size, 
one  for  every  hundred  tons  burden  at  the  rate  of  $10  each. 
...  I  am  informed  that  there  are  now  about  one  hundred 
in  the  hospital  at  Kingston  alone,  and  as  there  are  scarcely 
any  other  foreigners  trading  to  the  colony  but  Americans, 
the  greater  part  of  those  people  will  find  their  way  to  the 
United  States  in  the  manner  already  described." 

From  the  consulate  of  the  United  States,  District  of 

"Niles'  Register,  Vol.  LV. 


OPPOSITION  AND  REGULATION,  1775-1882  41 


Kingston-upon-Hull-Teeds,  August  30,  1836:  "The  officers 
of  the  customs  are  well  aware  that  paupers  do  proceed 
both  to  the  United  States  and  Canada;  and  it  has  been 
admitted  by  the  owners  of  several  vessels  sailing  there,  that 
their  passengers  are  paid  by  the  overseers  of  the  parishes 
to  which  they  belong.  The  mode  of  doing  this  varies  ac- 
cording to  the  trustworthiness  of  the  pauper." 

Of  special  interest  is  the  report  from  the  consulate  of  the 
United  States,  Leipsic,  March  8,  1837,  signed  by  F.  List.^^ 
"Not  only  paupers,  but  even  criminals,  are  transported 
from  the  interior  of  the  country  to  the  sea-ports  in  order 
to  be  embarked  there  for  the  United  States.  A  Mr.  De 
Stein  has  lately  made  propositions  to  the  smaller  states  of 
Saxony  for  transporting  their  criminals  to  the  port  of 
Bremen,  and  embarking  them  there  for  the  United  States 
at  $75  per  head,  which  offer  has  been  accepted  by  several 
of  them.  ...  It  has  of  late,  also,  become  a  general  practice 
in  the  towns  and  boroughs  of  Germany,  to  get  rid  of  their 
paupers  and  vicious  members,  by  collecting  means  for 
effectuating  their  passage  to  the  United  States  among  the 
inhabitants,  and  by  supporting  them  from  the  public  funds. 
This  practice  is  highly  injurious  to  the  United  States,  as 
it  burdens  them  with  a  host  of  paupers  and  criminals,  and 
also  deters  the  better  and  wealthier  class  of  the  inhabitants 
of  this  country  from  immigrating  to  the  United  States. 

"To  remedy  the  evil,  I  would  propose  the  following  meas- 
ures. 1.  That  all  persons  intending  to  immigrate  to  the 
United  States,  would  have  to  produce  to  the  Consul  of  the 
United  States,  in  the  sea-port,  a  testimonial  from  the  mag- 
istrate of  their  residence,  purporting  that  they  have  not 
been  punished  for  a  crime  (political  punishments  excepted) 
for  the  last  three  years;  that  they  are  able  to  maintain 
themselves  by  their  labor  or  capital.  2.  That  the  Consul 
of  the  United  States,  in  the  sea-port,  should  have  to  certify 
these  testimonials;  and  that  the  masters  of  ships,  who 

/'See  House  Report  No.  1040,  pp.  54-55;  U.  S.  25th  Congress,  2nd  Ses- 
sion. ''Report  from  Select  Committee  on  Foreign  Paupers  and  Naturali- 
zation Laws,  July  2,  1838." 


42 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


would  take  a  passenger  without  such  a  testimonial,  should 
have  to  pay  a  considerable  fine  on  landing  him  in  the  1 
United  States.   3.  That  the  Consul  of  the  United  States  I 
in  the  sea-port,  should  have  power  to  refuse  his  certificate 
to  all  those  immigrants  who,  in  his  opinion,  would  become 
a  burden  to  the  community  on  their  arrival  in  the  United , 
States."    These  recommendations  concerning  over  sea  in-j 
spection  have  been  of  unusual  importance  in  recent  years, 
especially  since  the  principles  involved  were  incorporated 
in  the  Act  of  1924  for  the  first  time. 

From  the  United  States  Consulate  at  Liverpool,  Sep- 
tember 15,  1836:  ''I  find  it  has  been  the  practice  with  many 
parishes,  for  some  years  past,  to  send  abroad  such  of  their 
superabundant  population  as  would  consent  to  go,  and 
although  there  has  never  been  a  restriction  as  to  the  place, 
they  have  invariably  preferred  the  United  States,  and 
ninety  out  of  a  hundred.  New  York." 

From  the  United  States  Consulate  at  Dublin,  September 
1,  1836:  ''Our  poor,  in  this  country,  are  very  poor  indeed — 
so  poor  as  to  be  altogether  without  the  means  of  support, 
even  for  a  few  days.  ...  It  is  by  no  means  an  uncommon 
occurrence  for  individuals  possessed  of  large  landed  prop- 
erties in  this  country  to  agree  with  the  tenants  to  pay  the 
expense  of  their  passage  to  America." 

-Other  consulate  reports  might  be  quoted  and  instances 
of  this  sort  might  be  multiplied,  but  these  will  suffice  to 
prove  that  the  practice  of  transporting  paupers  and  even 
criminals  was  a  common  one  during  this  period.  It  did 
much  to  create  that  feeling  of  hostility  to  immigrants 
which  manifested  itself  so  strongly  during  and  after  the 
thirties. 

No  further  action  by  Congress  was  had  on  the  subject 
during  the  remainder  of  the  session. In  fact,  no  further 
movement  on  the  subject  was  made  in  Congress  until  the 
session  of  1844-5,  and  then  no  definite  action  was  had. 
During  the  session  of  1844-5,  Hamilton  Fish  of  New  York, 
again  introduced  the  subject  into  the  House  of  Represen- 

"  Congressional  Globe  of  1837-8,  p.  489. 


OPPOSITION  AND  REGULATION,  1775-1882  43 

tatives,  and  a  resolution  was,  on  motion,  adopted,  directing 
blthe  committee  on  the  Judiciary  to  "report  to  the  House 
whether  any,  and  if  any,  what  further  legislation  is  neces- 
sary to  prevent  the  introduction  of  foreign  paupers  or 
criminals."  However,  no  report  seems  to  have  been  made 
or  further  action  had.^'^  In  the  Senate,  at  the  same  session, 
Mr.  Johnson  of  Louisiana  offered  a  similar  resolution,  but 
it  does  not  appear  to  have  ever  been  considered  or  passed.^^ 
Consular  reports  on  the  importation  of  foreign  paupers 
and  criminals  in  1845-46,  in  addition  to  a  thorough  investi- 
gation by  the  committee  on  the  Judiciary  in  the  Senate 
are  additional  proof  that  the  practices  had  not  then  ceased 
of  shipping  paupers  and  criminals  from  European  countries 
to  the  United  States.  Some  of  the  testimony  before  the 
Senate  committee     is  indeed  startling. 

Testifying  before  this  Senate  Committee  on  the  Judiciary 
March  3,  1845,  Dr.  S.  B.  Martin,  health  officer  of  Baltimore 
for  fifteen  years,  stated  how  he  had  plead  with  the  local 
authorities  year  after  year  to  check  in  some  way  the  great 
influx  of  paupers  and  convicts,  in  addition  to  "the  halt, 
the  lame  and  the  blind." 

Abraham  Cuyk  testified  that  he  had  been  an  agent  for 
forwarding  immigrants  to  the  United  States  for  four  years. 
He  stated  that  in  November,  1843,  the  Bremen  barque 
"Republic"  arrived  here  with  28  convicts  from  the  Kingdom 
of  Wurtemberg.  Moses  Catzenstein,  a  passenger  on  the 
same  boat,  testified  as  follows:  "Among  the  passengers 
were  28  criminals,  sent  out  of  the  country  by  their  re- 
spective governments,  and  accompanied  by  a  police  officer 
until  the  ship  was  fairly  at  sea,  when  each  of  the  28  persons 
were  handed  a  certain  sum  of  money  by  the  police  officer, 
and  then  he  left  the  ship  with  the  pilot,  and  the  ship  pro- 
ceeded on  her  voyage.  Nearly  all  the  persons  alluded  to 
are  now  in  Baltimore." 

Many  other  witnesses  testified  before  the  Senate  Com- 

"  Congressional  Globe  1844-45,  p.  209. 
^Ibid.,  p.  48. 

"Senate  Document  173,  28th  Congress,  Second  Session. 


44 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


mittee  in  like  manner  to  their  knowledge  of  foreign  govern- 
ments sending  paupers  and  criminals  to  the  United  States. 
Some  time  after  these  disclosures,  Hon.  Geo.  H.  Goundie, 
American  Consul  at  Basle,  Switzerland,  addressed  a  letter 
to  the  New  York  city  authorities  March  27,  1846,^^  in 
which  he  apprised  them  that  the  evil  of  sending  paupers 
and  criminals  into  this  country  was  on  the  increase.  Writ- 
ing to  the  Collector  of  the  Port  of  New  York  March  3,  1855, 
from  the  U.  S.  Consulate  at  Zurich,  Switzerland,  Hon.  G.  H. 
Goundie  stated:  ^'I  have  just  been  informed  that  the 
Commune  of  Niederwyl,  Switzerland,  have  been  forwarding 
320  of  their  poorest  people  to  the  United  States."  The  fol- 
lowing letter  from  the  State  Department  at  Washington, 
Sept.  3,  1855,  addressed  to  the  Mayor  of  New  Orleans, 
shows  the  means  resorted  to  by  those  then  engaged  in  trans- 
porting persons  to  the  United  States  in  order  to  avoid  de- 
tection : 

'^Circulars  issued  by  the  immigration  agents  in  the  in- 
terior of  Germany  caution  immigrants  who  are  deformed, 
crippled,  or  maimed,  etc.,  against  taking  passage  to  New 
York,  and  advise  them  to  go  by  way  of  Baltimore,  New 
Orleans,  or  Quebec,  where  the  laws  prohibiting  the  landing 
of  immigrants  of  the  above  classes  do  not  apply  .  .  . 
W.  Hunter,  Assistant  Secretary." 

Just  when  the  practice  finally  stopped  it  is  difficult  to 
say.  Even  as  late  as  1884-1885  thousands  of  immigrants 
were  sent  from  Ireland  to  the  United  States  and  Canada 
partly  at  state  expense  and  partly  at  the  expense  of  the 
''Tuke  Fund,"  some  of  whom  were  admittedly  paupers. 

While  the  dangers  from  pauperism  and  criminality  were 
probably  the  leading  causes  of  the  intense  hostility  to  immi- 
gration after  1830,  yet  broader  and  deeper  objections  were 
beginning  to  be  felt  and  to  be  expressed  in  current  writings. 
''In  the  North  American  Review  for  April,  1835,  there  is  a 
very  sane,  calm  and  convincing  article  by  Mr.  A.  H. 

**See  Senate  Document  No.  161,  U.  S.  29th  Congress,  2nd  Session.  Also 
see  House  Doc.  No.  54,  U.  S.  29th  Congress,  2nd  Session,  for  a  report  on 
the  emigration  of  German  paupers. 


OPPOSITION  AND  REGULATION,  1775-1882  45 


Everett,  in  which  the  disadvantages  of  immigration  are  set 
forth.  Many  of  the  stock  arguments  of  today  are  well  set 
forth  here,  among  them,  of  course,  the  dangers  from  pau- 
perism and  crime,  but  also  the  dangers  of  a  heterogeneous 
population,  of  poor  assimilation,  congestion  in  cities,  misuse 
of  political  power,  and  the  growth  of  foreign  colonies.  The 
author  questions  whether  the  immigrants  are  really  filling 
the  demand  for  labor,  and  urges  the  necessity  of  furnishing 
the  immigrants  with  information  about  different  sections 
of  the  country,  and  advising  them  about  their  destination. 
He  also  feels  the  need  of  much  greater  discrimination  in 
the  admission  of  aliens." 

By  1840  we  begin  to  hear  arguments  against  immigration 
on  the  ground  that  the  immigrants  do  more  work  for  less 
money  than  the  native  workingmen,  which  indicates  that 
the  native  workers  were  beginning  to  fear  the  economic 
competition  of  cheaper  foreign  labor.  It  is  the  foreshadow- 
ing of  modern  conditions  and  modern  thought  and  marks 
the  approaching  end  to  the  American  frontier.*^ 

Another  serious  cause  of  hostility  to  immigration  was 
religious  in  character,  viz.,  a  hatred  and  fear  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  religion,  to  which  the  great  majority  of  the  Irish 
adhered.  It  was  at  this  period  in  our  history  that  so  many 
Irish  Catholics  were  coming  to  our  country.  Dire  prophe- 
cies as  to  the  submerging  of  our  institutions  and  the  in- 
evitable downfall  of  the  Republic  through  Catholicism 
abounded  in  the  newspapers.  Throughout  the  sections  of 
the  country  where  the  Irish  settled,  anti-Catholic  riots  were 
not  infrequent,  even  necessitating  at  times  the  calling  out 
of  troops.  Open  hostility  was  displayed  toward  the  Irish 
laborers  on  the  canals  and  railroads  in  many  parts  of  the 
country.  Professor  McMaster  points  out  that  at  the  spring 
elections  of  1834  in  New  York  City  complaint  was  made 
on  the  part  of  the  Whigs  that  gangs  of  Irishmen  "armed 
with  stones  and  bludgeons  drove  them  from  the  polls,  at- 

"Fairchild,  op.  cit.,  p.  73. 

■"Thus,  by  1840  virtually  every  argument  heard  to-day  against  immigra- 
tion was  being  used. 


46 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


tacked  their  committee  in  its  own  room,  put  the! 
Mayor,  Sheriff,  and  posse  to  flight,  and  terrorized  the 
city."  It  was  necessary  to  call  out  the  state  militia  in 
Boston  in  1837  when  a  mob  attacked  and  sacked  the  houses 
of  the  Irish.  There  were  also  anti-foreign  riots  of  more  or 
less  serious  proportions  in  Cincinnati,  Philadelphia,  Boston, 
New  York,  and  other  cities,  most  of  which  were  directed 
against  the  Irish,  although  in  Cincinnati  the  rioting  was 
directed  against  the  Germans.*^ 

"These  riots,  the  often  reiterated  statement  that  the 
immigrants  were  paupers  and  criminals,  the  antagonism  of 
native  workers  in  various  lines  of  employment,  the  political 
attacks  by  foreign  born  upon  the  Government,  the  wide 
spread  political  organization  of  the  foreigners  and  their  con- 
spicuous participation  in  city,  state,  and  national  elections, 
disputes  over  the  use  of  the  Bible  in  the  public  schools,  the 
demands  of  the  Irish  Catholics  that  public  support  be  given 
to  their  parochial  schools — all  these  and  other  tendencies 
had  given  rise  as  early  as  the  thirties  to  a  public  sentiment 
of  antagonism  towards  the  immigrant." 

Professor  McMaster  puts  it  thus:  "Bringing  with  them' 
all  the  prejudices  of  their  native  land,  and  while  still  in 
character  and  opinion  what  they  were  while  a  part  of  some 
European  Society,  they  were  in  many  states  invested  with 
the  franchise,  and  the  whole  administration  of  government 
was  subject  to  change  by  men  just  arrived  from  a  land 
where  they  possessed  no  voice  in  the  affairs  of  state.  To 
such  as  thought  on  the  matter  of  immigration,  to  such  as 
considered  the  number  and  character  of  the  newcomers, 
what  they  did  and  where  they  went  after  reaching  our 
shores,  the  time  seemed  at  hand  for  regulation  or  restric- 
tion." 46 

Due  to  this  increasing  and  bitter  hostility  to  immigration, 
immigration  and  its  effects  became  an  issue  of  the  very  first 

*"  McMaster,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  VI,  p.  227. 

"The  opposition  to  the  Irish  seems  to  have  been  greater  than  that 
toward  the  Germans  and  Scandinavians,  for  the  Irish  tended  to  settle  in 
the  cities,  while  the  latter  tended  to  move  westward  into  the  interior, 
Wame,  op.  cit.,  pp.  238-9.  "^McMaster,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  VI,  p.  421. 


OPPOSITION  AND  REGULATION,  1775-1882  47 


importance  and  were  the  cause  of  one  of  the  most  remark- 
lable  political  movements  in  American  history,  viz.,  the 
'nativistic  movement  or  ''Native  Americanism."  The  begin- 
ning of  this  movement  is  evident  as  early  as  1835,  in  which 
year  there  was  a  Nativist  candidate  for  Congress  in  New 
York  City.  In  1836  the  party  nominated  a  candidate  for 
mayor  of  New  York.  Nativist  societies  were  formed  in 
Germantown,  Pa.,  and  in  Washington,  D.  C,  in  1837,  and 
two  years  later  the  party  was  organized  in  Louisiana,  where 
a  state  convention  was  held  in  1841.  The  Native  American 
Association  of  the  United  States,  which  was  formed  in 
Washington  in  1837,  sought  among  its  objects  to  cherish  na- 
tive American  sentiment,  to  exclude  foreign  opinions  and 
doctrines  ''introduced  by  foreign  paupers  and  European 
political  adventurers,"  to  exclude  foreigners  from  office 
under  the  State  and  Federal  Governments,  and  to  procure 
a  repeal  of  the  naturalization  law.  The  association  planned 
the  publication  of  a  newspaper  to  espouse  its  objects.  In 
1835  the  platform  of  the  Native  Americans  in  New  York 
stated,  "elevate  no  person  of  foreign  birth  to  any  office  of 
honor,  trust,  or  profit  in  the  United  States." 

Numerous  memorials  poured  into  Congress,  praying  for 
legislation,  so  numerous  were  the  evils  resulting  from  the 
steadily  increasing  stream  of  immigration  that  was  pouring 
into  the  United  States. ^"^  The  petitioners  saw  with  great 
concern  the  influx  of  Roman  Catholics.  To  such  persons, 
as  men,  and  to  their  religion  as  a  religion,  they  had  no 
objection.  But  against  their  political  opinions,  interwoven 
with  their  religious  belief,  they  asked  legislation  for  they 
felt  that  their  union  of  church  and  state  and  their  alle- 
giance to  the  Pope  required  such  action. 

Immigration  was  a  prominent  issue  in  the  presidential 
election  of  1844  in  which  James  K.  Polk  defeated  Henry 
Clay.  The  bitter  and  unrelenting  opposition  to  Henry  Clay 
on  account  of  Mr.  Frelinghuysen,  the  candidate  for  Vice- 
President,  who  was  a  Protestant  professor  of  Christianity 
and  a  well-known  and  active  member  of  the  American  Bible 

Executive  Document  No.  70,  25th  Congress,  Second  Session,  Vol.  II. 


48 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


Society,  did  much  to  alarm  the  public  at  the  foreign  influ- 
ence in  our  midst  and  it  aroused  indignation  against  those  ij 
who  controlled  it.  ' 

An  article  in  Freeman's  Journal,  probably  written  by 
Archbishop  Hughes  contained  the  following  impudent  | 
threat:  ''Irishmen  learn  in  America  to  bide  their  time.  .  .  .  * 
At  length  the  propitious  time  will  come — some  accidental, 
sudden  collision,  and  a  Presidential  campaign  at  hand.  We 
will  use,  then,  the  very  profligacy  of  our  politicians  for  our 
purposes.  They  will  want  to  buy  the  Irish  vote  and  we 
will  tell  them  how  they  can  buy  it  in  a  lump  from  Maine 
to  California." 

The  charge  was  made  by  the  foreign  elements  in  Brown-  ~ 
son's  Review  of  July,  1844,  that  Mr.  Frelinghuysen  ''con- 
centrates in  himself  the  whole  spirit  of  'Native  Ameri- 
canism and  no  Popery.'  "  | 

The  Boston  Pilot  of  October  31,  1844,  ^  well  known  ! 
Roman  Catholic  organ  of  that  day,  contained  the  following 
advice  to  voters:   "We  recommend  to  you  no  party;  we 
condemn  no  candidate  but  one,  and  he  is  Theodore  Freling- 
huysen." 

The  private  correspondence  of  Mr.  Clay  shows  that,  in  j 
the  opinion  of  himself  and  his  leading  friends,  his  defeat  li 
was  owing  to  the  foreign  vote  that  was  arrayed  against  i 
them.  In  a  letter,  dated  Buffalo,  November  11,  1844,  Mr.  I 
Fillmore  wrote  to  Mr.  Clay,  "The  Abolitionists  and  foreign  i 
Catholics  have  defeated  us  in  this  state.  .  .  .  Our  oppo-  j 
nents,  by  pointing  to  the  Native  Americans  and  to  Mr. 
Frelinghuysen,  drove  the  foreign  Catholics  from  us." 

In  a  letter  dated  Baltimore,  November  28,  1844,  Mr.  : 
John  H.  Westword  wrote  to  Mr.  Clay,  "It  was  foreign  in- 
fluences, aided  by  the  Irish  and  Dutch  vote,  that  caused  I 
our  defeat.    As  a  proof,  in  my  native  city  alone,  in  the  ; 
short  space  of  two  months  there  were  over  1,000  natural- 
ized." 

In  a  letter  addressed  to  Mr.  Clay,  by  Mr.  Freylinghuysen, 
dated  New  York,  November  9,  we  find  the  statement  that,  j 
"More  than  3,000  have  been  naturalized  in  this  city  alone 


OPPOSITION  AND  REGULATION,  1775-1882  49 

since  the  first  of  October.  It  is  an  alarming  fact,  that  this 
foreign  vote  has  decided  the  great  questions  of  American 
policy,  and  contracted  a  nation's  gratitude." 

Several  years  before  the  organization  of  the  American 
party,  The  United  States  Magazine  and  Democratic  Review 
of  July,  1850,  held  the  following  language — the  argument 
of  which  is  often  heard  at  the  present  time,  in  favor  of 
immigration  restriction : 

''These  European  reformers  are  flocking  hither  by  thou- 
sands, bringing  with  them  the  pestilent  products  of  the 
worn-out  soil  of  the  Old  World — which,  it  would  seem, 
whenever  it  falls  into  labor,  produces  nothing  but  monsters. 

.They  bring  with  them  a  host  of  extravagant  notions  of 
freedom,  or  a  plenty  of  crude,  undigested  theories  which 
are  utterly  irreconcilable  with  obedience  to  laws  of  our 
own  making  and  from  a  constitution  of  our  own  adopting. 
They  come  with  their  heads  full  of  a  division  of  property. 
.  .  .  The  Socialists,  who  are  come  and  coming  among  us, 

I  are  silently  making  an  impression  on  the  people  of  our  great 
cities,  where  all  the  sweepings  of  the  country  are  gathered 
into  one  great  mass  of  ignorance  and  corruption.  They 
are  instilling  into  them  principles  at  war  with  Society  .  . 

I     In  the  Pierce-Scott  Presidential  campaign  of  1852  Scott 

I  was  accused  of  ''nativism"  and  this  was  a  factor  in  his 
defeat.  Rhodes,  in  his  ''History  of  the  United  States,"  states 

!  that  "the  large  Irish  and  German  immigration  of  the  past 
few  years  have  given  the  foreign  vote  an  importance  never 
before  attached  to  it,  and  this  is  the  first  Presidential  cam- 
paign in  which  we  light  upon  those  now  familiar  efforts 
to  cajole  the  German  and  Irish  citizens."  The  foreign  vote 
in  elections  has  ever  since  been  an  element  of  considerable 
importance.  Hardly  a  campaign  has  passed  without  the 
public  being  greatly  agitated  because  of  the  conspicuous 

;  presence  at  the  polls  of  unnaturalized  foreigners.  It  is  cer- 
tainly true  that  the  foreign  vote  has  at  times  virtually 
decided  the  great  questions  of  American  policy.  That  this 
foreign  element  is  perhaps  stronger  than  ever  and  has  a 

i  powerful  voice  in  party  platforms  and  presidential  elections 


60 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


was  evident  in  the  political  conventions,  in  the  party  planks 
and  in  the  campaign  speeches  of  1924. 

One  feature  of  the  election  of  1852  was  the  prominence 
of  a  new  political  party  which  called  itself  the  American 
party,  but  which  is  better  known  by  the  appellation  of 
Know-nothings.  It  continued  the  opposition  to  immigra- 
tion as  manifested  in  the  Native  American  Movement. 
Americans,  and  Americans  only,  should  rule  America,  came 
to  be  its  fundamental  doctrine.  Their  cry  now  began  to 
be  Washington's  famous  order,  ^Tut  None  but  Americans 
on  Guard  Tonight."  ''The  immediate  and  practical  aim  in 
view  was  that  foreigners  and  Catholics  should  be  excluded 
from  all  national,  state,  county,  and  municipal  offices ;  that 
strenuous  efforts  should  be  made  to  change  the  naturaliza- 
tion laws  so  that  the  immigrant  could  not  become  a  citizen 
until  after  a  residence  of  twenty-one  years  in  this  country. 
No  one  can  deny  that  ignorant  foreign  suffrage  had  grown 
to  be  an  evil  of  immense  proportion." 

In  1854  this  party  carried  the  election  in  Massachusetts 
and  Delaware  and  polled  a  great  number  of  votes  in  New 
York.  In  1855  it  elected  governors  and  legislatures  in  New 
York  and  four  New  England  States,  and  in  the  South  it 
was  more  or  less  successful  in  nine  States.  In  1856,  it 
appeared  as  a  full-fledged  political  organization  and  nom- 
inated Fillmore  as  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency.  In  1856 
eight  of  the  thirty-two  states  had  native  American  gov- 
ernors. In  the  Thirty-fifth  Congress,  in  1857,  the  party 
had  five  Senators  and  fourteen  Representatives.  In  the 
Thirty-sixth  Congress,  it  had  two  Senators  and  twenty- 
three  Representatives,  all  from  the  South.  But  after  the 
Thirty-sixth  Congress  it  went  to  pieces  rapidly  and  had 
no  representation  in  any  subsequent  Congress. 

However,  the  bitter  hostility  to  immigration  continued 
and  the  evils  grew  worse.  The  Molly  Maguire  disturbance 
in  the  anthracite  region  of  Pennsylvania  after  1850  created 
bitter  hostility  to  immigration.  In  January,  1855,  the 
problem  was  so  serious  in  New  York  City  that  Mayor  Wood 

Rhodes,  History  of  the  Uni'ed  States,  Vol.  II,  p.  512. 


OPPOSITION  AND  REGULATION,  1775-1882  51 


addressed  a  letter  to  the  President,  in  which  he  asked  the 
interference  of  the  general  government  to  protect  our  coun- 
try against  these  foreign  aggressions.  Mayor  Wood  also 
addressed  our  ministers,  consuls,  and  other  representatives 
in  Europe,  invoking  their  aid  and  cooperation  to  put  an 
end  to  the  evil.  About  the  same  time  resolutions  of  in- 
quiry on  the  subject,  especially  concerning  paupers  and 
convicts,  were  introduced  in  the  Senate  by  Senator  Cooper 
of  Pennsylvania.  So  emboldened  had  some  of  the  foreign 
powers  become  in  making  our  country  the  receptacle  for 
the  dregs  and  off-scourings  of  their  population,  and  thus 
relieving  themselves  of  the  burden  of  pauperism  and  crime, 
that  some  of  them  had  the  audacity  to  deny  our  right  to 
prevent  them  from  doing  so.^^ 

One  of  the  governments  doing  so  was  Wurtemberg,  which 
in  1855  impudently  denied  our  right  to  return  paupers  and 
criminals  and  passed  public  resolutions  of  protest,  which 
have  had  a  familiar  echo  in  the  recent  protests  of  several 
nations  against  the  Act  of  1924.  These  resolutions  read  in 
part:  ^'Whereas,  It  is  desirable  that  those  who  have  once 
emigrated  to  America,  and  especially  those  who  have  been 
transported  thither  at  the  expense  of  the  State,  or  the  com- 
munes, and  are  unable,  whether  or  not  it  be  from  any  fault 
of  their  own,  to  earn  their  subsistence,  should  not  return 
here,  to  be  a  burden  to  the  State  or  the  commune,  which 
in  that  case  will  have  defrayed  the  expense  of  their  journey 
in  vain:  and 

^'Whereas,  The  American  authorities  are  scarcely  author- 
ized to  send  back  those  who,  having  once  been  admitted 
to  the  country,  cannot  earn  their  subsistence  in  America, 
.  .  .  therefore, 

^'Resolved,  That  necessary  steps  are  to  be  taken  to  pre- 
vent their  transportation  back  to  this  country." 

The  Wurtemberg  denial  of  our  rights  to  protect  our- 
selves against  their  criminals  and  paupers,  was,  in  itself 

Report  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives on  "Foreign  Criminals  and  Paupers,"  August  16,  1856.  U.  S.  34th 
Congress^  1st  Session,  House  Doc,  No.  3$9. 


52 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


recognized  at  that  time  by  the  House  Committee,  as  strong 
evidence  of  the  necessity  which  existed  for  doing  so. 

That  thoughtful  persons  were  then  studying  the  prob- 
lems resulting  from  immigration  and  were  urging  action  to  ! 
restrict  the  tide  is  evident  from  what  has  been  written,  j 
However,  the  following  facts  set  forth  in  a  startling  manner  j 
how  carefully  they  were  investigating  the  problems  result- 
ing especially  from  the  immigration  of  paupers  and  crim- 
inals.   The  methods  used  in  collecting  and  setting  forth 
their  facts  seem  to  be  similar,  if  not  identical,  in  many  cases  j- 
with  the  methods  used  in  the  investigations  of  recent  years,  [ 
as  noted  below.  ! 

"Whatever  the  causes  which  have  of  late  years  produced  ! 
this  immense  immigration  into  this  country,^^  it  is  cer- 
tainly an  undeniable  fact  that  the  'palpable  and  admitted  ' 
growing  influence  of  the  foreign  born  population  of  the 
United  States  has,  for  several  years  past,  been  a  source  of 
anxiety  and  dissatisfaction  to  a  considerable  number  of 
our  native  citizens.'  This  is  so  apparent  that  a  writer  on 
the  subject  of  immigration,  styling  himself  a  foreigner, 
frankly  admits  it  and  says:  'The  Kensington  riots,  the 
Southwark  disturbances,  and  the  present  position  of  civil, 
political,  and  religious  feeling,  confirm  the  fact,  and  render 
it  an  important  and  interesting  subject,  worthy  of  the 
attention  and  candid  consideration  of  us  all.'  " 

The  same  author  (J.  P.  Sanderson),  writing  on  the  pe- 
cuniary advantage  of  immigration,  set  forth  an  argument 
used  frequently  at  the  present  time  against  immigration. 
''It  would  be  probably  a  much  safer  and  more  accurate 
calculation,  to  assume  that  the  average  amount  of  prop- 
erty brought  by  each  immigrant  during  the  last  ten  years 
was  $15.^^  Bishop  Hughes  himself  claims  no  larger  ; 
amount;  for  but  a  short  time  since  he  averred  in  the  Free- 

"In  a  table  the  author  (J.  P.  Sanderson),  states  that  in  1850  the  total  of  [ 
all  of  our  population,  exclusive  of  Anglo-Saxon  blood  was  8,263,498;  the 
total  population  of  the  United  States  in  1850  being  23,263,488. 

"Sanderson,  J.  P.,  Republican  Landmarks,  p.  19  (1856). 

"  A  statement  in  Jahrbiicher  in  1851  claimed  the  average  amount  of  ; 
property  brought  by  each  German  immigrant  to  have  been  between  $64  ' 
and  $65.  The  Irish  were  said  to  average  $30  each. 


OPPOSITION  AND  REGULATION,  1775-1882 


53 


man's  Journal  that  to  be  the  sum.  Taking  that,  then,  as 
the  amount,  what  is  the  aggregate  sum  that  has  been 
brought  into  the  country  by  them  from  the  beginning  of 
1850  to  the  close  of  1854?  During  that  period  1,983,882 
persons  are  reported  by  the  State  Department  at  Wash- 
ington to  have  arrived,  which  at  the  rate  of  $15  per  head, 
would  make  the  sum  of  $29,758,220.  Now  let  us  take  an 
account  of  the  other  side  of  the  question  and  strike  a  bal- 
ance sheet.  By  the  general  report  of  the  British  Immi- 
gration Commissioners,  made  on  the  first  of  May  last,  the 
amounts  remitted  from  this  country  to  Ireland  alone  during 
the  same  period  were  as  follows:  in  1850,  £957,000;  in  '51, 
£990,000;  in  '52,  £1,404,000;  in  '53,  £1,439,000;  and  in  '54, 
£1,730,000 — which  when  converted  into  our  currency  sums 
up  to  $28,948,800.  We  have  thus  a  balance  left  in  favor  of 
this  country  of  less  than  $1,000,000,  without  taking  into 
account  the  amounts  sent  to  Ireland  through  private 
sources,  which  cannot  be  ascertained,  and  without  counting 
a  dollar  of  the  large  amount  remitted  by  the  Germans  and 
immigrants  from  other  countries  for  like  purposes^  It  is 
clear,  therefore,  that  immigrants  do  not,  by  the  property 
they  bring  with  them,  add  to  our  national  wealth,  but  that, 
on  the  contrary,  they  cont/^'ibute  to  swell  the  coffers  of  the 
countries  of  their  birth,  by  remitting  a  larger  amount  of 
money  than  they  bring  with  them.^^ 

^'But  we  are  not  yet  done  with  the  reckoning.  The  case 
has  not  been  much  more  than  half  stated.  .  .  .  Having 
contributed  nothing  to  the  aggregate  wealth  of  the  country, 
what  claim  then  have  they  to  its  charitable  consideration? 
And  yet,  whose  means  but  the  natives  of  this  country  and 
those  now  identified  with  them,  feeds  their  paupers  and 
educates  their  children?  And  how  much  of  the  public 
expenses  is  incurred  by  the  crimes  committed  by  the  vicious 
portions  of  them,  which  has  to  be  borne  also  by  those 

"  It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  connection  that  several  of  the  European 
countries  stated  in  1924,  if  the  United  States  put  into  force  drastic  immigra- 
tion restrictions,  that  they  would  not  bo  able  to  meet  thoir  war  debt  obliga- 
tions, since  the  flow  of  money  from  immigrants  in  the  United  States  would 
be  lessened  seriously. 


54 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


among  whom  they  have  sought  a  home?  These  are  ques-  j 
tions  to  be  taken  into  consideration  before  the  balance  j 
sheet  can  be  properly  closed,  and  when  they  are,  they  will  i 
be  found  to  put  at  rest  the  claim  now  preferred  in  favor  I 
of  immigration."  ! 

The  census  returns  of  1850  stated  that  the  amount  of  the  j 
public  means  expended  in  the  year  preceding  1850,  for  the  | 
support  of  paupers,  was  $2,954,806 ;  the  number  of  paupers  j 
supported  within  the  same  year,  in  whole  or  in  part,  was  j 
134,972,  of  which  over  one-half  were  foreigners,  there  being  ji 
66,434  native  born  and  68,538  of  foreign  birth.  Of  the  I 
foreign  born  population  in  the  United  States  at  that  . 
time,  one  of  at  least  every  thirty- three  was  a  pauper,  sup- 
ported at  public  expense,  while  of  the  native  born,^^  only 
one  of  every  three  hundred  was  thus  a  charge  on  the  public. 

From  other  sources  than  the  census  returns  of  1850, 
such  as  the  Prison  Discipline  Journal,  American  Register, 
American  Almanac,  etc.,  additional  information  can  be 
secured  to  set  forth  the  reasons  for  the  then  existing  and  I 
developing  opposition  to  immigration  in  the  United  States,  i 
especially  against  the  pauper  classes. 

In  Massachusetts,  there  were  relieved  and  maintained  at 
the  public  expense,  from  1837  to  1840,  the  aggregate  num-  | 
ber  of  8,671  persons,  of  whom  6,104  were  foreigners,  being 
over  two-thirds  of  the  number;  for  the  years  1850-1853, 
the  whole  number  amounted  to  107,776,  of  which  48,469  \ 
were  foreigners.    Of  these  over  40,000  were  from  England 
and  Ireland.    The  number  received  into  the  Baltimore 
almshouse  during  the  year  1851  was  2,150,  "of  v/hich  num- 
ber about  900  were  Irish  and  German,"  and  of  2,350  ad- 
mitted  to  the  same  institution  in  1854,  there  were  1,397  i 
foreigners,  of  whom  641  were  Germans  and  593  Irish. 

The  Society  for  the  relief  of  the  poor  in  Philadelphia  ' 
reported  that  for  the  year  ending  March  31,  1855,  there 
were  received  into  their  Home  1,266  persons,  of  whom 

"Sanderson,  J.  P.,  Republican  Landmarks,  pp.  25-26.  For  a  criticism 
of  this  argument  based  on  such  calculations,  see  Kapp,  F.,  Immigration, 
Ch.  VIII,  on  "The  Capital  Value  of  Immi-ratirn  to  This  Country"  (1870).  j 

"'Viz.,  2,244,625,  ""Viz.,  19,979,563, 


OPPOSITION  AND  REGULATION,  1775-1882  55 


there  were  816  foreigners;  605  of  whom  were  Irish.  The 
number  of  paupers  received  into  the  Blockley  (Philadel- 
phia) Almshouse  in  1848  was  3,584,  of  whom  2,345  were 
foreigners;  there  being  among  them  1,650  Irish,  435  Ger- 
mans and  227  English.  On  March  1,  1855,  the  census  of 
the  inmates  of  Blockley  Almshouse  showed  that  there  were 
558  natives  and  1,571  foreign  whites  therein. 

Over  the  12-year  period  1842-1854,  the  aggregate  num- 
ber of  persons  received  into  the  Pennsylvania  Hospital 
at  Philadelphia  was  17,834,  of  whom  10,543  were  for- 
eigners; of  the  foreigners  more  than  two-thirds  were  from 
Ireland. 

At  the  Charity  Hospital  in  New  Orleans  the  number  of 
admissions  in  1848  was  11,945  of  whom  10,280  were  for- 
eigners. In  1853  the  numbers  were  13,750  admitted,  of 
whom  12,333  were  foreigners. 

Many  similar  statistics  might  be  adduced,  all  showing  the 
same  state  of  things  in  different  sections  of  the  country  at 
that  time — all  setting  forth  the  reasons  for  the  developing 
opposition  to  at  least  certain  types  or  classes  of  immi- 
grants.^^ 

The  following  extract  from  a  letter  of  Jeremiah  Clemens, 
at  that  time  United  States  Senator  from  Alabama,  is  of 
great  interest  and  value,  for  in  his  investigations  he  seems 
to  have  used  the  same  methods  employed  by  Dr.  H.  H. 
Laughlin  in  his  institutional  survey,  reported  to  the  House 
Committee,  November  21,  1922.^8 

^'By  reference  to  the  annual  report  of  the  Governor  of 
the  Aims-House,  I  find  there  were  in  the  New  York  Aims- 
House,  during  the  year  1853,  2,198  inmates — of  these  only 
535  were  natives,  and  1,663  foreigners,  supported  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  city.  And  now  I  propose  to  use  on  our  side 
the  argument  of  our  opponents,  that  there  are  only  3,000,- 
000  foreigners  to  20,000,000  natives.  According  to  that 
ratio  there  ought  to  be  about  seven  natives  to  one  for- 

"  Similar  facts  have  been  set  forth  in  recent  years  to  prove  the  necessity 
for  restriction  of  immigration. 

"^Dr.  H.  H.  Laughlin's  report  is  explained  in  full  in  the  chapter,  "Back 
to  1890." 


56 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


eigner  in  the  Aims-House ;  whereas  we  find  more  than  three  i 
foreigners  to  one  native. No  wonder  that  a  people  who  I 
are  taxed  to  support  such  a  body  of  paupers  should  be  the 
first  to  set  about  devising  means  to  get  rid  of  them.    In  ; 
the  Bellevue  Hospital,  in  the  same  city,  there  were  702  1  ^ 
Americans — 4,134  foreigners;  now  the  proportion  rises  to  ' 
nearly  six  to  one.    There  were  the  outdoor  poor — 957  | 
native  adults  and  1,044  children — 3,131  foreign  adults  and  j  ft 
5,229  foreign  children.   In  the  city  prisons  there  were  dur-  ! 
ing  the  year  6,102  Americans — 22,229  foreigners.    In  the  i  p 
Lunatic  Asylum  there  were  admitted  from  the  year  1847  |  o 
to  1853,  779  Americans— 2,381  foreigners.  .  .  .  These  fig-,  i  t 
ures  are  far  more  conclusive  than  any  language  could  be  to  - !  1 
prove  the  necessity  of  arresting  the  tide  of  immigration,  j  e 
Let  every  American  impress  them  deeply  upon  his  memory :  s 
42,369  foreign  paupers  and  invalids;  2,381  lunatics,  and  I 
22,229  criminals,  taxing  the  industry  and  blighting  the  I  t 
prosperity  of  a  single  city.    In  that  list  of  crimes  is  em-  '  ( 
braced  murder,  rape,  arson,  robbery,  perjury,  everything  ;  i 
which  is  damning  to  the  character  of  the  individual,  and  i  i 
everything  which  is  dangerous  to  society."  J  i 

Advocates  of  immigration  restriction  in  the  fifties  set  !  ] 
forth  figures  concerning  crime  to  prove  the  necessity  for 
a  check  on  immigration.  According  to  De  Bow's  Census  I 
Compendium  the  whole  number  of  criminals  convicted  in  | 
the  year  1848,  not  including  California,  was  26,679,  of  which  j 
number  12,988  were  natives  and  13,691  were  foreigners,  be-  | 
ing  one  conviction  out  of  every  1580  of  the  native  and  one  ' 
out  of  about  every  165  of  the  foreign  population  in  the  ;l 
United  States  at  that  time.  ; 

Of  those  convicted  10,279  were  in  New  York,  of  whom  ^| 
6,317  were  foreigners.    In  Massachusetts  those  convicted 
numbered  7,250  of  whom  there  were  259  more  than  one- 
half  foreigners.   In  all  the  New  England  states  more  than 
one-half  of  those  convicted  were  foreigners.  : 

In  a  speech  advocating  immigration  restriction,  which  ^ 

"It  would  sorm  that  this  is  virtually  tho  same  basic  plan  used  by  Dr. 
H.  H.  Laughlin  in  his  report  to  the  House  Committee,  November  21,  1922. 


OPPOSITION  AND  REGULATION,  1775-1882  57 


he  delivered  in  the  United  States  Senate  January  25,  1855, 
Hon.  James  Cooper  of  Pennsylvania  stated  that  in  the 
conviction  for  capital  offenses  the  proportion  of  foreign  to 
native  born  was  startling,  and  that  out  of  220  convictions 
which  took  place  in  about  eighteen  months  in  the  seven 
states  of  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Missouri,  Louisiana, 
New  Jersey,  Massachusetts,  and  Maryland,  there  were  138 
of  foreigners  to  82  of  natives.^^ 

Virtually  all  of  this  agitation  and  opposition,  however, 
proved  to  be  futile  in  the  direction  of  restricting  the  volume 
of  immigration  for  the  great,  almost  limitless  West  was  still 
to  be  settled.  While  a  few  states  passed  more  laws  after 
1840,  yet  these  accomplished  little  for  they  were  easily 
evaded.  The  problem  was  no  longer  one  which  could  be 
solved  by  state  action.  Formerly  this  had  been  sufficient 
but  it  was  no  longer  able  to  stem  the  tide.  Just  as  the 
trust  problem  in  the  United  States  grew  too  large  for  state 
control  and  demanded  federal  legislation;  just  as  the  rail- 
road problem  outgrew  the  capacity  of  the  states  to  deal 
with  it  successfully  and  forced  Congress  to  legislate;  just 
so  did  immigration  become  after  1830  so  big  and  vital  a 
problem  that  it  demanded  legislation  from  Congress.  How- 
ever, *'it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  at  the  time  opposition 
to  immigration  was  becoming  strongest  there  was  an  even 
more  important  subject  engrossing  the  attention  of  the 
people  and  one  which  then  loomed  much  more  threaten- 
ingly on  the  political  horizon,  a  subject  of  internal  dif- 
ference that  was  dividing  the  American  people  much  more 
fundamentally,  a  subject  that  was  to  plunge  them  into 
bloody  fratricidal  strife.  In  the  throes  of  it  the  evils  of 
immigration  were  lost  sight  of."  'State  rights  was  the 
issue  through  all  these  years,  so  that  during  all  this  period 
of  agitation  prior  to  the  War  Between  the  States,  oppo- 
sition to  immigration  was  not  sufficiently  strong  to  place 
any  restrictive  legislation  on  the  Federal  Statute  books. 

""For  many  additional  facts  see  Buscy,  S.  C,  Immigration,  Its  Evils 
and  Consequences  (1856),  and  Sanderson,  J.  P.,  Republican  Landmarks 
(1856). 

^  Wame,  op.  cit.,  p.  245. 


58 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


As  a  result  immigration  was  left  almost  entirely  by  the 
Federal  Government  in  the  hands  of  the  separate  states 
to  be  dealt  with  under  their  police  powers  as  they  thought 
best  for  their  own  safety  and  welfare.  In  the  next  chapter 
we  shall  study  the  problem  as  to  who  has  the  authority 
over  immigration  in  the  United  States.  However,  the  im- 
portant thing  to  note  here  is  that  federal  legislation  on 
the  subject  was  not  fundamentally  necessary  before  the 
thirties  and  that,  though  necessary  after  then,  it  was  impos- 
sible to  secure  it,  not  because  the  people  were  not  opposed 
to  immigration,^-  but  because  the  question  of  state  rights 
had  to  be  settled  first.  Congress  had  asserted  its  power  in 
the  Alien  and  Sedition  Acts  of  1798  to  keep  out  or  prohibit 
the  importation  of  aliens.  Its  constitutionality  was  denied 
by  several  States.  What  was  the  power  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment and  what  were  the  powers  of  the  State  Govern- 
ments on  the  subject?  Into  a  study  of  this  problem,  let 
us  now  enter. 

"The  War  Between  the  States,  following  the  industrial  panic  of  1857, 
naturally  checked  the  tide  of  immigration  and,  for  about  a  decade,  the 
excessive  fear  of  immigration  was  lessened.  The  liberal  homestead  act  of 
1862  was  also  partly  responsible  for  this  change  of  attitude  toward  the 
alien  elements. 


CHAPTER  III 


Power  of  Congress  Over  Immigration  * 

Congressional  authority  under  Article  I,  Section  9,  of  the  Constitution — 
Cases — The  internal  police  power  of  the  states — Cases — Congressional  au- 
thority over  immigration  under  the  power  to  regulate  commerce — Cases — 
Conclusions. 

How  far  Congress  had  the  power  under  the  ninth  section 
of  the  first  Article  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
to  regulate,  restrain  or  prohibit  the  immigration  of  for- 
eigners, or  whether  it  had  any  power  over  the  subject, 
was  a  disputed  question  for  many  years.  The  ninth  section 
of  the  first  article  provides  that:  "the  migration  or  impor- 
tation of  such  persons  as  any  of  the  States,  now  existing, 
shall  think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  Con- 
gress prior  to  the  year  1808,  but  a  tax  may  be  imposed  on 
such  importation,  not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each  per- 
son.This  was  undoubtedly  understood  by  the  framers  of 
the  constitution  to  apply  altogether  to  slaves  and  it  was 
so  construed  in  the  Federalist,  the  forty-second  number  of 
which,  written  by  Mr.  Madison,  contains  the  following  in 
relation  to  it : 

"It  were  doubtless  to  be  wished  that  the  power  of  pro- 
hibiting the  importation  of  slaves  had  not  been  postponed 
until  the  year  1808.  ...  It  ought  to  be  considered  as  a 
point  gained  in  favor  of  humanity,  that  a  period  of  twenty 
years  may  terminate  forever,  within  these  States,  a  traffic 
which  has  so  long  and  so  loudly  upbraided  the  barbarism 
of  modern  policy.  .  .  .  Attempts  have  been  made  to  per- 
vert this  clause  into  an  objection  against  the  constitution, 
by  representing  it  on  one  side  as  a  criminal  toleration  of 
an  illicit  practice,  and  on  another  as  calculated  to  prevent 

*For  early  studies  on  this  topic  see  Sanderson,  J.  P.,  op.  cit.,  Ch.  XI; 
i  Busey,  op.  cit.,  Ch.  XIII;  and  Kapp,  op.  cit.,  Ch.  VIII-IX. 

59 


60 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


voluntary  and  beneficial  immigration  from  Europe  to 
America.  I  mention  these  misconstructions  not  with  the 
view  to  give  them  an  answer — for  they  deserve  none — but 
as  specimens  of  the  manner  and  spirit  in  which  some  have 
thought  fit  to  conduct  their  opposition  to  the  proposed 
government."  ] 

The  language  used  in  the  constitution,  however,  seems  to 
be  such  as  may  well  justify  the  question,  raised  by  many 
persons  at  that  time,  whether  it  could  not  have  been  ap-  I 
plied  clearly  and  fairly  to  the  importation  of  foreign  con-  ; 
victs  and  paupers,  and  there  were  many  who  contended  ' 
that  it  applied  to  all  immigrants,  conferring  upon  Congress 
the  power  to  prohibit  the  admission  of  all  ''such  persons," 
and  necessarily  including  the  power  to  admit  them  on  such 
conditions  as  it  might  have  thought  proper  to  impose, 
which  would,  of  course,  have  carried  with  it  the  right  of 
taxing  them.   It  was  certainly  deemed  broad  enough  at  the 
time  of  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  notwithstanding 
the  cavalier  manner  in  which  Mr.  Madison  dismissed  the 
objections  urged  against  it,  to  cover  immigrants  generally, 
while  some  supposed  it  might  cover  convicts.^ 

Luther  Martin,  in  his  celebrated  letter  to  the  Maryland 
Legislature,  explanatory  of  the  course  pursued  by  him  in 
the  convention  which  framed  the  constitution,  alludes  to 
this  provision  as  follows: 

'The  design  of  this  clause  is  to  prevent  the  General 
Government  from  prohibiting  the  importation  of  slaves; 
but  the  same  reasons  which  caused  them  to  strike  out  the 
word  'national,'  and  not  admit  the  word  'stamps'  influenced 
them  here  to  guard  against  the  word  'slaves.'  They  anx- 
iously sought  to  avoid  the  admission  of  expressions  which 
might  be  odious  in  the  ears  of  Americans,  although  they 
were  willing  to  admit  into  their  system  those  things  which 
the  expression  signified;  and  hence  it  is  that  the  clause  is 
so  worded  as  really  to  authorize  the  General  Government 
to  impose  a  duty  of  ten  dollars  on  every  foreigner  who 
comes  into  a  State  to  become  a  citizen,  whether  he  comes 

^Madison  State  Papers,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1429-30. 


POWER  OF  CONGRESS  OVER  IMMIGRATION  61 

absolutely  free,  or  qualified  so  as  a  servant;  although  this 
is  contrary  to  the  design  of  the  framers,  and  the  duty  was 
only  meant  to  extend  to  the  importation  of  slaves."  ^ 

James  Wilson,  who  was  himself  a  leading  and  influential 
member  of  the  Convention  which  framed  the  constitution, 
and  also  the  prominent  champion  of  it  in  the  Pennsylvania 
Convention,  which  was  convened  to  ratify  or  reject  it,  re- 
ferred in  a  speech,  in  the  last  named  body  to  this  particular 
provision,  as  follows: 

''A  little  impartiality  and  attention  will  discover  the  care 
that  the  Convention  took  in  selecting  their  language.  The 
words  are — 'the  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons, 
etc.,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  Congress  prior  to  the  year 
1808,  but  a  tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such  importa- 
tion.' It  is  observable  here  that  the  term  migration  is 
dropped,  when  a  tax  or  duty  is  mentioned,  so  that  Congress 
have  power  to  impose  the  tax  only  on  those  imported."  ^ 

In  the  North  Carolina  Convention  Mr.  Galloway  made 
the  objection  that  he  did  ''not  wish  to  see  the  tax  on  the 
importation  extended  to  all  persons  whatsoever,"  and  gave 
as  his  reasons  therefor,  that  the  situation  of  the  South  was 
different  from  the  North,  saying,  "we  want  citizens,  they 
do  not."  Mr.  Iredell,  afterwards  one  of  the  judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  replied  to  these  re- 
marks, as  follows: 

"The  worthy  gentleman  has  I  believe  misunderstood  this 
clause.  .  .  .  The  committee  will  observe  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  two  words  migration  and  importation.  The  first 
part  of  the  clause  will  extend  to  persons  who  come  into  this 
country  as  free  people,  or  as  slaves  bought.  But  the  last 
part  extends  towards  slaves  only.  The  word  migration 
refers  to  free  persons;  but  the  word  importation  refers  to 
slaves  because  free  people  cannot  be  said  to  be  imported. 
The  tax,  therefore,  is  only  to  be  laid  on  slaves  who  are  im- 
ported, and  not  on  free  persons  who  migrate."  ^ 

From  these  statements  it  would  seem  that  both  Justices 

"Elliot's  Debates,  Vol.  I,  p.  372.  'Elliot's  Debates,  Vol.  II,  p.  453. 

*  Elliot's  Debates,  Vol.  IV,  p,  101. 


62 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


Wilson  and  Iredell  seem  to  concede  the  power  to  Congress 
under  this  provision  of  the  constitution  to  prohibit,  after 
1808,  the  migration  of  foreigners  as  well  as  the  importation 
of  slaves,  and  only  contended  that  the  right  of  taxation  was 
confined  by  Congress  to  the  importation  of  slaves.  Others 
admitted  that  such  was  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  the 
constitution,  but  contended  that  it  conferred  the  power  to 
tax  voluntary  immigrants  as  well  as  slaves.  According  to 
the  views  of  these  gentlemen,  the  General  Government  had 
the  power,  under  this  section  of  the  constitution,  over  the 
subject  of  immigration  as  well  as  the  importation  of  slaves. 
This  view  seems  to  have  been  sustained  by  various  judicial 
opinions. 

Chief  Justice  Marshall,  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  the  case  of  Gibbons 
V.  Ogden,^  in  which  case  the  Court  decided  that  the  power 
to  regulate  commerce,  so  far  as  it  extends,  is  exclusively 
vested  in  Congress,  and  that  no  part  of  it  can  be  exercised 
by  a  State  in  violation  of  any  law  of  Congress,  used  the 
following  language  in  relation  to  the  ninth  section  of  the 
first  article  of  the  constitution: 

"The  section  which  restrains  Congress  from  prohibiting 
the  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any  of  the 
States  may  think  proper  to  admit  until  1808,  has  always 
been  considered  as  an  exception  from  the  power  to  regulate 
commerce;  and  certainly  seems  to  class  migration  with 
importation.  Migration  applies  as  appropriately  to  volun- 
tary, as  importation  does  to  involuntary,  arrivals;  and, 
so  far  as  an  exception  from  a  power  proves  its  existence, 
this  section  proves  that  the  power  to  regulate  commerce 
applies  equally  to  the  regulation  of  vessels  employed  in 
transporting  men,  who  pass  from  place  to  place  voluntarily, 
and  to  those  who  pass  involuntarily.'^ 

In  the  same  case.  Justice  Johnson,  who  concurred  in  the 
decision  of  the  Court  but  delivered  a  separate  opinion,  gave 
his  views  on  this  point  as  follows: 

"Commerce,  in  its  simplest  signification,  means  an  ex- 

•9  Wheaton  Rep.  216  (1824). 


POWER  OF  CONGRESS  OVER  IMMIGRATION  63 


change  of  goods;  but  in  the  advancement  of  society,  labor, 
transportation,  intelhgence,  care,  and  various  mediums  of 
exchange,  become  commodities,  and  enter  into  commerce; 
the  subject,  the  vehicle,  the  agent,  and  their  various  opera- 
tions, become  the  objects  of  commercial  regulation.  .  .  . 
That  such  was  the  understanding  of  the  framers  of  the  con- 
stitution, is  conspicuous  from  provisions  contained  in  that 
instrument.  The  first  clause  of  the  ninth  section,  not  only 
considers  the  right  of  controlling  personal  ingress  or  migra- 
tion, as  implied  in  the  powers  previously  vested  in  Congress 
over  commerce,  but  acknowledge  it  as  a  subject  of  revenue. 
And,  although  the  leading  object  of  this  section  undoubt- 
edly was  the  importation  of  slaves,  yet  the  words  are  obvi- 
ously calculated  to  comprise  persons  of  all  descriptions,  and 
to  recognize  in  Congress  a  power  to  prohibit,  when  the 
States  permit,  although  they  cannot  permit  when  the  States 
prohibit." 

In  the  cases  of  Smith  v.  Turner  and  Norris  v.  City  of 
Boston,^  in  which  the  constitutionality  of  the  passenger 
laws  of  New  York  and  Massachusetts  came  under  consider- 
ation and  were  declared  void,  Justice  McKinley  delivered 
the  following  opinion,  which  seems  to  accord  with  those 
of  Chief  Justice  Marshall  and  Justice  Johnson: 

have  never  heard  a  full  and  satisfactory  argument  on 
the  first  clause  of  the  ninth  section  of  the  first  article  of 
the  Constitution.  Yet,  on  full  examination  of  the  clause, 
connected  with  other  provisions  of  the  constitution,  it  has 
had  a  controlling  influence  on  my  mind  in  the  determina- 
tion of  the  case  before  us.  Some  of  my  brethren  have  in- 
sisted that  the  clause  here  quoted  applies  exclusively  to 
the  importation  of  slaves.  If  the  phrase  ^the  migration  or 
importation  of  such  persons'  was  intended  by  the  conven- 
tion to  mean  slaves  only,  why,  in  the  assertion  of  the  tax- 
ing power,  did  they,  in  the  same  clause,  separate  migra- 
tion from  importation,  and  use  the  following  language? — 
'But  a  tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such  persons,  not 
exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each  person.'   All  will  admit  that 

•7  Howard  283  (1848). 


64 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


if  the  word  migration  were  excluded  from  the  clause,  it 
would  apply  to  slaves  only.  An  unsuccessful  attempt  was 
made  in  the  convention  to  amend  this  clause  by  striking 
out  the  word  migration,  and  thereby  to  make  it  apply  to 
slaves  exclusively.  .  .  .  The  conclusion,  to  my  mind,  is 
therefore  irresistible,  that  there  are  two  separate  and  dis- 
tinct classes  of  persons  intended  to  be  provided  for  by  this 
clause.  Although  they  are  both  subjects  of  commerce, 
the  latter  class  only  is  the  subject  of  trade  and  importation. 
The  slaves  are  not  immigrants.  .  .  .  Having  thus  shown 
there  are  two  distinct  classes  included  in,  and  provided  by, 
the  clause  of  the  constitution  referred  to,  the  question 
arises,  how  far  the  persons  of  the  first  class  are  protected  by ' 
the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States  from  the  ~ 
operation  of  the  statute  of  New  York  now  under  considera- 
tion? The  power  was  conferred  on  Congress  to  prohibit 
migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  into  all  the  new 
States,  from  and  after  the  time  of  their  admission  into  the 
Union,  because  the  exemption  from  the  prohibition  of  Con- 
gress was  confined  exclusively  to  the  States  then  existing, 
and  left  the  power  to  operate  upon  all  the  new  States  ad- 
mitted into  the  Union  prior  to  1808.  Four  new  States  hav- 
ing been  thus  admitted  within  that  time,  it  follows,  beyond 
controversy,  the  power  of  Congress  over  the  whole  subject 
of  migration  and  importation  was  complete  throughout  the 
United  States  after  1808. 

''The  power  to  prohibit  the  admission  of  'all  such  per- 
sons,' includes,  necessarily,  the  power  to  admit  them  on 
such  conditions  as  Congress  may  think  proper  to  impose; 
and,  therefore,  as  a  condition,  Congress  has  the  unlimited 
power  of  taxing  them.  If  this  reasoning  be  correct,  the 
whole  power  over  the  subject  belongs  exclusively  to  Con- 
gress, and  connects  itself  indissolubly  with  the  power  to 
regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations.  .  .  .  The  great 
question  here  is.  Where  does  the  power  of  the  United  States 
over  this  subject  end,  and  where  does  the  State  power 
begin?  This  is,  perhaps,  one  of  the  most  perplexing  ques- 
tions ever  submitted  to  the  consideration  of  this  court." 


POWER  OF  CONGRESS  OVER  IMMIGRATION  65 


Justice  Wayne  concurred  with  Justice  McKinley  in  his 
interpretation  of  the  ninth  section  of  the  first  article  of 
the  constitution.  He  stated  that  it  ''includes  within  it  the 
migration  of  other  persons,  as  well  as  the  importation  of 
slaves,  and  in  terms  recognizes  that  other  persons  as  well 
as  slaves  may  be  the  subjects  of  importation  and  com- 
merce." He  doubtless  had  in  view  the  transportation  of 
convicts  and  paupers  to  the  United  States  at  the  expense 
of  European  governments.  Justice  Catron  also  concurred 
in  the  opinion  delivered  by  Justice  McKinley  and  adopted 
it  as  forming  part  of  his  own. 

Chief  Justice  Taney  could  not,  however,  assent  to  the 
opinion  expressed  by  Justice  McKinley,  and  Justices 
Daniel,  Nelson  and  Woodbury  concurred  with  him  in  dis- 
senting. The  Chief  Justice  said : 

'Tf  the  word  can  be  applied  to  voluntary  immigrants, 
the  construction  put  upon  it  by  those  who  opposed  the 
constitution  is  certainly  the  just  one;  for  it  is  difficult  to 
imagine  why  a  power  should  be  so  explicitly  and  carefully 
conferred  on  Congress  to  prohibit  immigration,  unless  the 
majority  of  the  States  desired  to  put  an  end  to  it,  and  to 
prevent  any  particular  State  from  contravening  this  policy. 
But  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  it  was  then  the  policy 
of  all  States  to  encourage  immigration.  ...  It  is  only  upon 
the  ground  that  they  considered  it  an  evil,  and  desired  to 
prevent  it,  that  this  word  can  be  construed  to  mean  free- 
dom, and  to  class  them  in  the  same  provision  and  in  the 
same  words,  with  the  importation  of  slaves.  The  limita- 
tion of  the  prohibition  also  shows  that  it  does  not  apply 
to  voluntary  immigrants.  Congress  could  not  prohibit  the 
migration  and  importation  of  such  persons  during  the  time 
specified  'in  such  States  as  might  think  proper  to  admit 
them.'  This  provision  clearly  implies  that  there  was  a 
well  known  difference  of  policy  among  the  States  upon  the 
subject  to  which  this  article  relates.  Now,  in  regard  to 
voluntary  immigrants,  all  the  States,  without  exception, 
not  only  admitted  them,  but  encouraged  them  to  come;  and 
the  words  'in  such  States  as  may  think  proper  to  admit 


66  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


them/  would  have  been  useless,  and  out  of  place,  if  applied 
to  voluntary  immigrants.  But  in  relation  to  slaves  it  was 
known  to  be  otherwise.  .  .  .  The  qualification  of  the  power 
of  prohibition,  therefore,  by  the  words  above  mentioned, 
was  entirely  appropriate  to  the  importation  of  slaves,  but 
inappropriate  and  useless  in  relation  to  freedom.  .  .  .  The 
whole  context  of  the  sentence,  and  its  provisions  and  limita- 
tions, and  the  construction  given  to  it  by  those  who  assisted 
in  framing  the  clause  in  question,  show  that  it  was  intended 
to  embrace  those  persons  only  who  were  brought  in  as 
property." 

Justice  Woodbury,  in  noticing  this  section,  in  delivering 
his  opinion  in  the  same  cases,  said: 

'This  they  consider  as  a  grant  of  power  to  Congress  to 
prohibit  the  immigration  from  abroad  of  all  persons,  bond 
or  free,  after  1808,  and  to  tax  their  importation  at  once  and 
forever,  not  exceeding  ten  dollars  per  head.  (9  Wheaton, 
230;  Justice  Johnson:  15  Peters,  514).  .  .  .  But  it  deserves 
special  notice,  that  this  ninth  section  is  one  entirely  of 
limitation  of  power  rather  than  a  grant  of  it;  and  th 
power  of  prohibition  being  nowhere  else  in  the  constitutio 
expressly  granted  to  Congress,  the  section  seems  intro- 
duced rather  to  prevent  it  from  being  implied,  except  as 
to  slaves,  after  1808,  than  to  confer  it  in  all  cases.  (1 
Brockenbrough,  434).  If  to  be  implied  elsewhere,  it  is 
from  the  grant  to  regulate  commerce,  and  by  the  idea 
that  slaves  are  subjects  of  commerce,  as  they  often  are. 
Hence  it  can  go  no  further  than  imply  it  as  to  them,  and 
not  as  to  free  passengers.  Or  if  to  'regulate  commerce' 
extends  also  to  the  regulation  of  mere  navigation,  an 
hence  to  the  business  of  carrying  passengers,  in  which  it 
may  be  employed,  it  is  confined  to  a  forfeiture  of  the  vessel, 
and  does  not  legitimately  involve  a  prohibition  of  persons, 
except  when  articles  of  commerce,  like  slaves.  (1  Brocken- 
brough, 432).  Or  finally,  however,  it  is  still  a  power  con- 
current in  the  States,  like  most  taxation,  and  is  well  exer- 
cised by  them  when  Congress  does  not,  as  here,  legislate 
on  the  matter  either  of  prohibition  or  of  taxation  of  pas- 


POWER  OF  CONGRESS  OVER  IMMIGRATION  67 


sengers.  It  is  hence,  that  if  this  9th  section  was  a  grant 
to  prevent  the  migration  or  importation  of  other  persons 
than  slaves,  it  is  not  an  exclusive  one,  any  more  than  that 
to  regulate  commerce,  to  which  it  refers:  nor  has  it  even 
here  been  exercised  so  as  to  conflict  with  State  Laws  or 
with  the  statute  of  Massachusetts,  now  under  considera- 
tion. This  clause  itself  recognizes  an  exclusive  power  of 
prohibition  in  the  States,  until  1808.  And  a  concurrent  and 
subordinate  power  on  this  by  the  States,  after  that,  is 
nowhere  expressly  forbidden  in  the  constitution,  nor  is  it 
denied  by  any  reason  or  necessity  for  such  exclusiveness. 
The  States  can  often  use  it  more  wisely  than  Congress, 
in  respect  to  their  own  interests  and  policy.  .  .  .  The  word 
'migration'  was  probably  added  to  'importation,'  to  cover 
slaves  when  regarded  as  persons  rather  than  property,  as 
they  are  for  some  purposes.  Or  if  to  cover  others,  such  as 
convicts  and  redemptioners,  it  was  those  only  who  came 
here  against  their  will  or  in  a  quasi  servitude." 

Justice  Daniel  expressed  himself  as  follows:  'This  ninth 
section  of  the  first  article  of  the  constitution  has  been  in- 
voked in  support  of  the  power  claimed  for  the  Federal 
Government.  .  .  .  The  assertion  for  a  general  necessity  for 
permission  to  the  States  from  the  General  Government, 
either  to  expel  from  their  confines  those  who  are  mis-^ 
chievous  or  dangerous,  or  to  admit  to  hospitality  and  settle- 
ment whomsoever  they  may  deem  it  advantageous  to  re- 
ceive, carries  with  it  either  a  denial  to  the  former,  as  perfect 
original  sovereignties,  of  the  right  of  self-preservation,  or 
presumes  a  concession  to  the  latter,  the  creature  of  the 
States,  wholly  incompatible  with  its  exercise.  This  author- 
ity over  alien  friends  belongs  not,  then,  to  the  General 
Government,  by  any  express  delegation  of  power,  nor  by 
necessary  or  improper  implication  from  express  grants." 

From  a  review  of  the  opinions  given,  the  weight  of 
authority  seems  to  be  that  the  section  of  the  constitution 
in  question  was  an  exception  to  the  power  of  Congress  to 
regulate  commerce,  so  that  if  it  had  not  been  introduced, 
the  power  to  prohibit  the  importation  would  have  resulted 


68 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


from  the  general  grant  to  regulate  commerced  For  it  is 
a  rule  of  interpretation  acknowledged  by  all,  that  the  ex- 
ception of  a  particular  thing  from  general  words  proves 
that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  lawgiver,  the  thing  excepted 
would  be  within  the  general  clause,  had  the  exception  not 
been  made,  and  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  this 
general  rule  should  not  be  as  applicable  to  the  constitution 
as  to  other  instruments.^  The  section,  according  to  this 
construction,  not  only  considers  the  right  of  controlling 
personal  ingress  or  migration,  as  implied  in  the  powers 
previously  vested  in  Congress  over  commerce,  but  acknowl- 
edges it  as  a  subject  of  revenue.^  Congress  having  the 
exclusive  power  to  regulate  commerce,  and  the  latter,  under 
the  interpretation  of  the  ninth  section  including  the  im- 
migration of  persons  as  well  as  the  importation  of  mer- 
chandise, the  conclusion  was  beginning  to  be  irresistible 
by  1850  that  Congress  had  the  sole  power  over  the  immi- 
gration of  foreigners  as  well  as  the  importation  of  goods, 
and  that  the  States  could  not,  therefore,  tax  immigrants  for 
the  purpose  of  paying  expenses  incident  to  the  execution 
of  their  police  laws. 

Though  a  great  difference  of  opinion  is  manifested  in  the 
written  opinions  of  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  as  to 
the  constitutionality  of  the  passenger  laws  of  New  York 
and  Massachusetts,  which  imposed  a  tax,  and  which  were 
under  consideration  in  the  cases  of  Smith  v.  'Turner  and 
Norris  v.  Boston,  no  such  differences  existed  among  them  as 
to  the  power  relating  to  internal  police  being  reserved  to 
the  States,  to  be  exercised  by  them  even  to  the  entire  ex- 
clusion of  certain  classes  of  persons.  This  principle  was 
fully  established  in  the  case  of  the  City  of  New  York  v. 
Milne, which  came  before  the  United  States  Supreme 
Court,  on  a  certificate  of  division  in  opinion  of  the  Judges 
of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Southern 
District  of  New  York.  The  facts  of  the  case  were  these: 
By  one  of  the  provisions  of  an  act  passed  by  the  New  York 

'  15  Poters'  Rop.,  514.  •  12  Whcaton,  450. 

M2  Wheaton  Rep.,  440.  "11  PctciV  Rep.,  102  (January,  1837). 


POWER  OF  CONGRESS  OVER  IMMIGRATION  69 


'  Legislature  in  1824,  the  master  of  every  vessel  arriving  in 
New  York  was  required  under  certain  penalties,  within 
twenty-four  hours  after  his  arrival,  to  make  report  of  the 
names,  ages  and  last  legal  settlement  of  every  person  on 
board  his  vessel,  etc.  New  York  City  brought  an  action 
of  debt  under  this  law  against  the  master  of  the  ship 
"Emily'^  for  the  recovery  of  certain  penalties  imposed  by 
the  act.  The  defendant  demurred  and  alleged  that  the  act 
assumed  to  regulate  trade  and  commerce,  and  was  therefore 
unconstitutional.  The  Supreme  Court  decided  otherwise, 
however,  and  pronounced  the  act  to  be  constitutional.  In 

I delivering  the  opinion  of  the  court,  Justice  Barbour  said: 
"We  are  of  opinion  that  the  act  is  not  a  regulation  of 
commerce  but  of  police;  and  that  being  thus  considered,  it 
was  passed  in  the  exercise  of  a  power  which  rightfully  be- 
longed to  the  States.  .  .  .  The  power  of  New  York  to  pass 
this  law  having  undeniably  existed  at  the  formation  of  the 
constitution,  the  simple  inquiry  is,  whether  by  that  instru- 
ment it  was  taken  from  the  States,  and  granted,  to  Con- 
gress ;  for  if  it  were  not,  it  yet  remains  with  them.  If, 
.  as  we  think,  it  be  a  regulation,  not  of  commerce,  but 
police;  then  it  is  not  taken  from  the  States.  To  decide 
this,  let  us  examine  its  purpose,  the  end  to  be  attained, 
and  the  means  of  its  attainment. 

i  "The  object  of  the  legislature  was,  to  prevent  New  York 
from  being  burdened  by  an  influx  of  persons  brought 
thither  in  ships,  either  from  foreign  countries,  or  from  any 

i  other  of  the  States,  and  for  that  purpose  a  report  was  re- 
quired of  the  names,  places  of  birth,  etc.,  of  all  passengers, 

'  that  the  necessary  steps  might  be  taken  by  the  city  authori- 
ties to  prevent  them  from  becoming  chargeable  as  paupers. 
.  .  .  Now  we  hold  that  both  the  end  and  the  means  here 
used,  are  within  the  competency  of  the  States,  since  a  por- 
tion of  their  powers  were  surrendered  to  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment. Let  us  see  what  powers  are  left  with  the  States. 
.  .  .  This  court,  in  the  case  of  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,^^  in  speak- 

j  ing  of  the  inspection  laws  of  the  State,  says:  'They  form  a 

"9  Wheat.,  203  (1824). 


70 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


portion  of  that  immense  mass  of  legislation  which  embraces 
everything  within  the  territory  of  a  State,  not  surrendered 
to  the  General  Government,  all  which  can  be  most  advan- 
tageously exercised  by  the  States  themselves.'  ...  , 

''Now,  if  the  act  in  question  be  tried  by  reference  to  the ; 
delineation  of  power  laid  down  in  the  preceding  quota-  j 
tion,  it  seems  to  us  that  we  are  necessarily  brought  to  the 
conclusion,  that  it  falls  within  its  limits.  .  .  .  We  choose  | 
rather  to  plant  ourselves  on  what  we  consider  impregnable  I 
positions.   They  are  these :  That  a  State  has  the  same  un-  \ 
deniable  and  unlimited  jurisdiction  over  all  persons  and 
things,  within  its  territorial  limits,  as  any  foreign  nation, 
where  that  jurisdiction  is  not  surrendered  or  restrained 
by  the  constitution  of  the  United  States;  that,  by  virtue 
of  this,  it  is  not  only  the  right  but  the  bounden  and  solemn 
duty  of  a  State,  to  advance  the  safety,  happiness  and  pros- 
perity of  its  people,  and  to  provide  for  its  general  welfare, 
by  any  and  every  act  of  legislation  which  it  may  deem  to 
be  conducive  to  these  ends;  where  the  power  over  the 
particular  subject,  or  the  manner  of  its  exercise  is  not  sur- 
rendered or  restrained,  in  the  manner  just  stated;  that  all 
those  powers  which  may  be  called  internal  police,  are  not 
thus  surrendered  or  restrained;  and  that,  consequently,  in 
relation  to  these  the  authority  of  a  State  is  complete,  un- 
qualified, and  exclusive.    We  are  aware,  that  it  is  at  all 
times  difficult  to  define  any  subject  with  proper  precision 
and  accuracy;  if  this  be  so  in  general,  it  is  emphatically  so 
in  relation  to  a  subject  so  diversified  and  multifarious  as  the 
one  which  we  are  now  considering.  ... 

''Now  in  relation  to  the  section  in  the  act  immediately 
before  us,  that  is  obviously  passed  with  a  view  to  prevent 
her  citizens  from  being  oppressed  by  the  support  of  multi- 
tudes of  poor  persons,  who  come  from  foreign  countries 
without  possessing  the  means  of  supporting  themselves. 
There  can  be  no  mode  in  which  the  power  to  regulate 
internal  police  could  be  more  appropriately  exercised.  New 
York,  from  her  particular  situation,  is,  perhaps  more  than 
any  other  city  in  the  Union,  exposed  to  the  evil  of  thou- 


POWER  OF  CONGRESS  OVER  IMMIGRATION  71 


I  sands  of  foreign  immigrants  arriving  there,  and  the  conse- 
quent danger  of  her  citizens  being  subjected  to  heavy  charge 
in  the  maintenance  of  those  who  are  poor.  It  is  the  duty 
of  the  State  to  protect  its  citizens  from  this  evil;  they 
have  endeavored  to  do  so,  by  passing,  amongst  other  things, 
the  section  of  the  law  in  question.  We  should,  upon 
principle,  say  that  it  had  a  right  to  do  so.  .  .  . 

''We  think  it  as  competent  and  as  necessary  for  a  State 
to  provide  precautionary  measures  against  the  moral  pesti- 
lence of  paupers,  vagabonds,  and  possibly  convicts,  as  it 
is  to  guard  against  the  physical  pestilence  which  may  arise 
from  unsound  and  infectious  articles  imported,  or  from  a 
ship,  the  crew  of  which  may  be  laboring  under  an  infec- 
tious disease.'^ 

In  the  same  case  Justice  Thompson  said:  ''Can  anything 
fall  more  directly  within  the  police  power  and  internal 
regulation  of  a  State,  than  that  which  concerns  the  care 
and  management  of  paupers  or  convicts  or  any  other  class 
or  description  of  persons  that  may  be  thrown  into  the 
country,  and  likely  to  endanger  its  safety,  or  become  charge- 
able for  their  maintenance?  It  is  not  intended  by  this 
remark  to  cast  any  reproach  upon  foreigners  who  may  ar- 
rive in  this  country.  But  if  all  power  to  guard  against 
these  mischiefs  is  taken  away,  the  safety  and  welfare  of 
the  community  may  be  very  much  endangered." 

In  the  case  of  Groves  et  al  v.  Slaughter,^^  Chief  Justice 
Taney,  in  noticing  the  question  of  constitutional  law  that 
had  been  brought  into  discussion,  viz.,  whether  the  grant 
of  power  to  the  General  Government  to  regulate  commerce 
does  not  carry  with  it  an  implied  prohibition  to  the  States 
to  make  any  regulations  upon  the  subject,  even  though 
they  should  be  altogether  consistent  with  those  made  by 
Congress,  raised  the  query  whether  such  State  legislation 
would  not  be  valid  until  Congress  should  otherwise  direct. 
He  said:  "The  question  upon  which  different  opinions  have 
been  entertained,  is  this:  Would  a  regulation  of  commerce, 
by  a  State,  be  valid  until  Congress  should  otherwise  direct, 

"  15  Peters'  Rep.,  509. 


72 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


provided  such  regulation  was  consistent  with  the  regula- 
tions of  Congress,  and  did  not  in  any  manner  conflict  with 
them?  No  case  has  yet  arisen  which  made  it  necessary, 
in  the  judgment  of  the  court,  to  decide  the  question.  It 
was  treated  as  an  open  one,  in  the  case  of  The  City  of  New 
York  V.  Milne,^^  decided  at  January  term,  1837,  as  will 
appear  by  the  opinions  then  delivered;  and  since  that 
time  the  point  has  never,  in  any  form,  come  before  the 
court." 

Justice  Baldwin,  in  the  same  case,  (Groves  et  al  v. 
Slaughter,  15  Peters'  Rep.  509)  however,  emphatically 
recognized  the  exclusive  power  of  Congress  over  commerce, 
yet  at  the  same  time  conceded  the  internal  police  power 
to  belong  exclusively  to  the  States.  He  stated:  ^That  the 
power  of  Congress  'to  regulate  commerce  among  the  several 
States'  is  exclusive  of  any  interference  by  the  States,  has 
been,  in  my  opinion,  conclusively  settled  by  the  solemn 
opinions  of  this  court,  in  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,^^  and  in  Brown 
V.  Maryland. .  .  .  Cases  may,  indeed,  arise  wherein 
there  may  be  found  the  diflaculty  in  discriminating  be- 
tween regulations  of  'commerce  among  the  several  States,' 
and  the  regulations  of  'the  internal  police  of  a  State,'  but 
the  subject-matter  of  such  regulations,  of  either  descrip- 
tion, will  lead  to  the  true  line  which  separates  them,  when" 
they  are  examined  with  a  disposition  to  avoid  a  collision 
between  the  powers  granted  to  the  Federal  Government, 
by  the  people  of  the  several  States,  and  those  which  they 
have  reserved  exclusively  to  themselves." 

In  the  case  of  Prigg  v.  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsyl- 
vania,^^ Justice  Story,  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the 
Court,  used  the  following  language  in  relation  to  the  police 
power  belonging  to  the  States:  "The  police  power  extends 
over  all  subjects  within  the  territorial  limits  of  the  States, 
and  has  never  been  conceded  to  the  United  States.  .  .  . 
We  entertain  no  doubts  whatsoever,  that  the  States,  in 
virtue  of  their  general  police  power,  possess  full  jurisdic- 


"11  Peters,  102. 
"  12  Wheat,  438-446. 


"9  Wheat.,  186-192. 
"  16  Peters'  Rep.,  625. 


POWER  OF  CONGRESS  OVER  IMMIGRATION  73 


tion  to  arrest  and  restrain  runaway  slaves  and  remove  them 
from  their  borders,  and  otherwise  to  secure  themselves 
.against  their  depredations  and  evil  example,  as  certainly 
they  may  do  in  cases  of  idlers,  vagabonds,  and  paupers." 

In  the  License  cases/"^  Chief  Justice  Taney  still  insisted 
that  there  was  no  absolute  prohibition  to  the  exercise  of 
the  power  over  commerce  by  the  States,  in  which  opinion 
Justice  Woodbury  concurred.  However,  Justice  McLean 
did  not  agree  with  them  as  to  the  power  of  the  States 
over  commerce  but  he  distinctly  recognized  the  internal 
police  power  of  the  States.  He  stated:  ''In  all  matters 
of  government,  and  especially  of  police,  a  wide  discretion 
ds  necessary.  It  is  not  susceptible  of  an  exact  limitation, 
but  must  be  exercised  under  the  changing  exigencies  of 
society.  .  .  .  Under  the  pretense  of  a  police  regulation,  a 
State  cannot  counteract  the  commercial  power  of  Congress. 
.  .  .  The  police  power  of  a  State  and  the  foreign  com- 
mercial power  of  Congress  must  stand  together.  Neither 
of  them  can  be  so  exercised  as  materially  to  affect  the 
other.  The  sources  and  objects  of  these  powers  are  ex- 
clusive, distinct  and  independent,  and  are  essential  to  both 
governments." 

Justice  Grier,  in  the  same  case  said:  ''Without  attempt- 
ing to  define  what  are  the  peculiar  subjects  or  limits  of  the 
police  power,  it  may  safely  be  affirmed  that  every  law  for 
the  restraint  and  punishment  of  crime,  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  public  peace,  health,  and  morals,  must  come 
within  this  category.  ...  It  is  for  this  reason  that  quaran- 
tine laws,  which  protect  the  public  health,  compel  mere 
commercial  regulations  to  submit  to  their  control.  They 
restrain  the  liberty  of  the  passengers,  they  operate  on  the 
ship  which  is  the  instrument  of  commerce,  and  its  officers 
and  crew,  the  agents  of  navigation.  .  .  .  Paupers  and  con- 
victs are  refused  admission  into  the  country.  All  these 
things  are  done,  not  from  any  power  which  the  States  as- 
sume to  regulate  commerce  or  to  interfere  with  the  regula- 
tions of  Congress,  but  because  police  laws  for  the  preserva- 

"5  Howard,  578. 


74 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


tion  of  health,  prevention  of  crime,  and  protection  of  thel 
public  welfare,  must  of  necessity  have  full  and  free  opera-' 
tion,  according  to  the  exigency  which  requires  their  inter-! 
ference." 

The  immediate  question  at  issue  in  the  case  of  Smith  v. 
Turner  and  Norris  v.  City  of  Boston^ ^  was  not,  however,' 
made  dependent  upon  the  construction  of  the  ninth  section 
of  the  first  article  of  the  constitution,  but  was,  whether  thai 
enactment  of  certain  laws  of  New  York  and  Massachusetts, 
imposing  a  tax  upon  passengers,  either  foreigners  or  citizens 
coming  into  the  ports  in  those  States,  was  in  conflict  with 
the  power  of  Congress  over  commerce.  The  case  of  Smith* 
V.  Turner  arose  under  the  health  laws  of  New  York.  By 
the  seventh  section  of  the  act  of  that  State  under  con- 
sideration, it  was  provided,  ''that  the  health  commissioner 
shall  demand,  and  be  entitled  to  receive,  etc.,  from  the 
master  of  every  vessel  from  a  foreign  port,  for  himself 
and  each  cabin  passenger,  etc.,  one  dollar,  and  the  master 
of  each  coasting  vessel  from  the  States  of  New  Jersey,  Con- 
necticut, and  Rhode  Island,  shall  not  pay  for  more  than 
one  voyage  in  each  month."  The  eighth  section  pro- 
vided that  the  moneys  so  received  should  be  denominated 
''hospital  moneys";  and  the  ninth  gave  "each  master  pay- 
ing hospital  moneys,  a  right  to  demand  and  recover  from 
each  person  the  sum  paid  on  his  account."  The  tenth 
provided  for  a  forfeiture  of  $100  in  case  of  the  master's 
failure  to  pay  within  a  certain  time;  and  the  eleventh  re- 
quired the  commissioners  of  health  to  account  to  the  Comp- 
troller of  the  State,  and  in  case  the  sum  received  in  any 
one  year  exceeded  the  expenses  of  their  trust,  they  were  to 
pay  the  surplus  to  the  Treasurer  of  the  Society  for  the 
Reformation  of  Juvenile  Delinquents. 

The  plaintiff  in  error  was  master  of  the  British  ship, 
Henry  Bliss,  and  landed  at  New  York  in  June,  1841,  two 
hundred  and  ninety  steerage  passengers,  and,  refusing  to 
pay  the  required  tax,  the  defendant  in  error  brought  an 
action  against  him  therefor,  whereupon  he  filed  a  demurrer, 

"7  Howard  283  (1848). 


POWER  OF  CONGRESS  OVER  IMMIGRATION  75 


on  the  ground  that  the  act  was  a  regulation  of  commerce, 
iand  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
The  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  overruled  the  demurrer, 
land  the  Court  of  Errors  afiirmed  the  judgment,  and  there- 
upon it  was  taken  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.  Justice  McLean,  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the 
Court,  concurred  in  by  Justices  Catron,  Grier,  McKinley, 
and  Wayne,  and  dissented  to  by  Chief  Justice  Taney,  and 
Justices  Nelson,  Daniel,  and  Woodbury,  considered  the  case 
iunder  two  general  heads:  ^'1.  Is  the  power  of  Congress  to 
regulate  commerce  an  exclusive  power?"  and  *'2.  Is  the 
statute  of  New  York  a  regulation  of  commerce?"  Both  of 
these  propositions  were  answered  in  the  affirmative  by  the 
court. 

The  case  of  Norris  v.  the  City  of  Boston  brought  before 
the  court  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Massa- 
chusetts, which  was  in  favor  of  the  constitutionality  of  ''an 
jact  relating  to  alien  passengers,"  passed  April  20,  1837. 
I  This  act  contained  provisions  which,  according  to  the  view 
I  taken  in  the  case  of  Smith  v.  Turner,  were  considered  regu- 
lations of  commerce,  and  not  within  the  constitutional 
power  of  the  State  to  enact.   These  provisions  were  as  fol- 
lows:   Section  1  provided  for  an  examination  of  all  alien 
passengers  on  board  by  an  official  designated  by  the  city 
government  of  Boston.    Section  2  stated  ^'If,  on  such  ex- 
amination, there  shall  be  found  among  said  passengers  any 
lunatic,  idiot,  maimed,  aged  or  infirmed  person,  incompe- 
tent in  the  opinion  of  the  officer  so  examining,  to  maintain 
[themselves,  or  who  have  been  paupers  in  any  country,  no 
such  alien  passenger  shall  be  permitted  to  land,  until  the 
master,  owner,  consignee  or  agent  of  such  vessel,  shall  have 
I  given  to  such  city  or  town  a  bond  in  the  sum  of  one  thou- 
sand dollars,  with  a  good  and  sufficient  security,  that  no 
such  lunatic,  or  indigent  passenger  shall  become  a  city, 
town,  or  State  charge,  within  ten  years  from  the  date  of 
the  said  bond."    Section  3  was  to  the  effect  that  ''no  alien 
passenger,  other  than  those  spoken  of  in  the  preceding 
section,  shall  be  permitted  to  land  until  the  master,  owner, 


76 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


consignee,  or  agent  of  such  vessel,  shall  pay  to  the  regu- 1 
larly  appointed  boarding  officer  the  sum  of  two  dollars  for  |: 
each  passenger  so  landing;  and  the  money  so  collected  shallij' 
be  paid  into  the  treasury  of  the  city  or  town,  to  be  ap-  i 
propriated  as  the  city  or  town  may  direct  for  the  support  | 
of  foreign  paupers."  | 

In  his  defense  of  the  Massachusetts  law,  the  counsel  | 
representing  the  City  of  Boston  stated :  "The  law  of  Massa-  \ 
chusetts  was  not  made  for  the  purpose  of  regulating  foreign  | 
commerce,  although  it  affects  it  so  far  as  is  necessary  in 
providing  for  the  regulation  of  a  class  of  persons  connected  i 
with  it,  but  it  is  in  fact  an  act  modifying  the  pauper  laws 
of  the  State,  and  designed  to  mitigate,  in  some  degree, 
the  burdens  attempted  to  be  thrown  upon  us  in  subjecting  : 
us  to  support  the  alien  poor.  ...  I 

''The  act  is  in  every  feature  manifestly  a  pauper  law, 
growing  out  of  a  pressing  emergency.  .  .  .  The  State  has  • 
exercised  for  two  hundred  years  the  right  to  make  pauper 
laws.    Can  she  do  it  now?    I  contend  that  this  power  is 
one  of  her  attributes  of  sovereignty,  which  she  has  never . 
surrendered,  and  now  has  the  right  to  enjoy.  ...  3 

"The  law  of  Massachusetts  has  no  reference  whatever ' 
to  foreign  commerce,  except  as  the  instrument  employed  to  : 
inflict  an  injury  upon  the  State.  It  is  the  avenue  through 
which  these  persons  are  introduced,  and  is  controlled  just 
so  far  as  is  necessary  to  mitigate  the  evil  and  make  it  endur- 
able, but  no  farther.  Can  we  not  do  this?  ...  I  have  read 
the  language  of  this  bench,  in  which  they  concede  the  right 
and  declare  it  to  be  our  duty,  to  exercise  our  police  power 
by  protective  and  preventive  measures.  We  are  warned 
that  it  is  as  much  our  duty  to  provide  against  the  moral 
pestilence  of  pauperism  as  against  infection.  ... 

''We  may  protect  ourselves,  says  the  court;  but  when, 
how,  where?  .  .  .  What  can  a  State  do  to  avert  or  pre-  , 
vent,  after  the  paupers  and  vagabonds  are  landed  and 
mixed  with  the  population?  Such  an  exercise  of  the  power 
conceded  to  us  would  be  barren  and  useless.  We  must  meet 
it  on  shipboard,  as  we  do  disease  and  dangerous  merchan-jii 


POWER  OF  CONGRESS  OVER  IMMIGRATION  77 


dise.  There  we  can  put  our  hands  upon  the  lunatics,  idiots, 
aged  and  infirm  paupers,  etc.  There  we  can  learn  what  the 
shipowner,  the  master,  and  the  agents  for  emigration 
are  about.  There  we  can  detect  their  conspiracy  with  the 
parishes  of  Europe  to  transfer  their  poor  and  their  culprits 
to  this  country,  to  poison  our  morals  and  increase  our 
burdens.  There  is  the  place,  and  the  only  place,  to  apply 
the  corrective,  where  the  evidence  can  lead  to  no  mistake. 
If  we  cannot  meet  the  evil  here,  and  regulate  it  here,  the 
power  to  expel  and  the  power  to  prevent  are  empty  and 
!  worthless.'^ 

All  of  the  judges  delivered  written  opinions  in  these 
so-called  ^'Passenger  Cases."^*  In  Smith  v.  Turner  Justice 
McLean  stated;  'The  case  of  the  City  of  New  York  v. 
Milne,  11  Pet.,  102,  is  relied  on  with  great  confidence  as 
sustaining  the  act  in  question.  As  I  assented  to  the  points 
ruled  in  that  case,  consistency,  unless  convinced  of  having 
erred,  will  compel  me  to  support  the  law  now  before  us, 
if  it  be  the  same  in  principle.  ...  In  the  Milne  case  a 
duty  was  not  laid  upon  the  vessel  or  the  passengers,  but 
a  report  only  was  required  from  the  master.  Now  every 
State  has  an  unquestionable  right  to  require  a  register  of 
the  names  of  the  persons  who  come  within  it  to  reside 
temporarily  or  permanently.  It  opposed  no  obstruction  to 
commerce,  imposed  no  tax  nor  delay,  but  acted  upon  the 
master,  owner  or  consignee  of  the  vessel,  after  the  termina- 
ls tion  of  the  voyage,  and  when  he  was  within  the  territory 
of  the  State,  mingling  with  its  citizens,  and  subject  to  its 
laws. 

"But  the  health  law,  as  it  is  called,  under  consideration, 
is  altogether  different  in  its  objects  and  means.  It  imposes 
a  tax  or  duty  on  the  passengers,  officers  and  sailors,  holding 
the  master  responsible  for  the  amount  at  the  immediate 
termination  of  the  voyage,  and  necessarily  before  the  pas- 
sengers have  set  their  feet  on  land.  .  .  .  The  principle  in- 
volved is  vital  to  the  commercial  power  of  the  Union.  .  .  . 
The  police  power  of  the  State  cannot  draw  within  its 

"7  Howard  283  (1848). 


78 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


jurisdiction  objects  which  lie  beyond  it.  In  guarding  the 
safety,  health,  and  morals  of  its  citizens,  a  State  is  re- 
stricted to  appropriate  and  constitutional  means.  .  .  .  The 
act  of  New  York  which  imposes  a  tax  on  passengers  of  a 
ship  from  a  foreign  port,  in  the  manner  provided,  is  a 
regulation  of  foreign  commerce,  which  is  exclusively  vested 
in  Congress:  and  the  act  is  therefore  void." 

Justice  Grier  said:  ''It  is  true,  that  if  a  State  has  an 
absolute  and  uncontrolled  right  to  exclude,  the  inference 
that  she  may  prescribe  the  conditions  of  entrance,  in  the 
shape  of  a  license  or  tax,  must  necessarily  follow.  The  con- 
clusion can  not  be  evaded  if  the  premises  be  proved.  A 
right  to  exclude  is  a  power  to  tax ;  and  the  converse  of  the 
proposition  is  also  true,  that  a  power  to  tax  is  a  power  to 
exclude;  and  it  follows,  as  a  necessary  result,  from  this 
doctrine,  that  those  States  in  which  are  situated  the  great 
ports  or  gates  of  commerce  have  a  right  to  exclude,  if  they 
see  fit,  all  immigrants  from  access  to  the  interior  States, 
and  to  prescribe  the  conditions  on  which  they  shall  be  al- 
lowed to  proceed  on  their  journey.  ...  If  these  States 
retain  all  the  rights  of  sovereignty,  as  this  argument  as-  i 
sumes,  one  of  the  chief  objects  for  which  this  Union  was 
formed  has  totally  failed,  and  'we  may  again  witness  the 
scene  of  conflicting  commercial  regulations  and  exactions 
which  were  once  so  destructive  to  the  harmony  of  the 
States,  and  fatal  to  their  commercial  interests  abroad.' 

"To  guard  against  the  recurrence  of  the  evils,  the  consti-  I 
tution  has  conferred  on  Congress  the  power  to  regulate  j 
commerce  with  foreign  nations,  and  among  the  States  in 
order  that,  as  regards  our  intercourse  with  other  nations 
and  with  one  another,  we  might  be  one  people — not  a  mere  f 
confederacy  of  sovereign  States  for  the  purpose  of  defense  | 
or  aggression."  , 

Inamediately  after  the  decision  in  the  Passenger  Cases^  j 
the  State  of  New  York  modified  her  statute  with  a  view,  i 
no  doubt,  to  avoid  the  constitutional  objection.    At  the ; 
time  the  constitutionality  of  the  law  as  modified,  was  again 
challenged  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 


POWER  OF  CONGRESS  OVER  IMMIGRATION  79 


in  Henderson  et  al  v.  Mayor  of  New  York  et  al,-^  its  pro- 
visions were  as  follows:  The  master  or  owner  of  every 
vessel  landing  passengers  from  a  foreign  port  was  bound  to 
make  a  report  similar  to  the  one  recited  in  the  statute  held 
to  be  valid  in  the  case  of  New  York  v.  Milne ;  and  on  this 
report  the  Mayor  was  to  indorse  a  demand  upon  the  master 
or  owner  that  he  give  a  bond  for  every  passenger  landed 
in  the  city,  in  the  penal  sum  of  $300,  conditioned  to  in- 
demnify the  commissioners  of  immigration,  and  every 
county,  city,  and  town  in  the  State,  against  any  expense 
for  the  relief  or  support  of  the  person  named  in  the  bond 
for  four  years  thereafter;  but  the  owner  or  consignee  may 
commute  for  such  bond,  and  be  released  from  giving  it,  by 
paying,  within  twenty-four  hours  after  the  landing  of  the 
passengers,  the  sum  of  one  dollar  and  fifty  cents  for  each  one 
of  them.  If  neither  the  bond  be  given  nor  the  sum  pai  J 
within  the  twenty-four  hours,  a  penalty  of  $500  for  each 
pauper  was  incurred,  which  was  made  a  lien  on  the  vessel, 
collectible  by  attachment  at  the  suit  of  the  Commissioner 
of  Emigration. 

It  was  argued  that  the  change  in  the  statute  took  it  out 
of  the  principle  of  the  case  of  Smith  v.  Turner,  the  Pas- 
senger Case  of  New  York.  It  was  argued  that  the  statute 
in  that  case  was  a  direct  tax  on  the  passenger,  while  in 
the  present  case  the  requirement  of  a  bond  was  but  a 
suitable  regulation  under  the  power  of  the  State  to  pro- 
tect its  cities  and  towns  from  the  expense  of  supporting 
persons  who  are  paupers  or  diseased,  or  helpless  women 
and  children,  coming  from  foreign  countries. 

Mr.  Justice  Miller  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  court,  in 
which  he  said:  'Tn  whatever  language  a  statute  may  be 
framed,  its  purpose  must  be  determined  by  its  natural  and 
reasonable  effect;  and  if  it  is  apparent  that  the  object 
of  this  statute,  as  judged  by  that  criterion,  is  to  compel 
the  owners  of  the  vessels  to  pay  a  sum  of  money  for  every 
passenger  brought  by  them  from  a  foreign  shore,  and 
landed  at  the  port  of  New  York,  it  is  as  much  a  tax  on 

"92  U.  S.  259  (1875). 


80 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


passengers  if  collected  from  them,  or  a  tax  on  the  vessel  or 
owners  as  was  the  statute  held  void  in  the  Passenger  Cases. 
To  require  a  heavy  and  almost  impossible  condition  to  the 
exercise  of  this  right  with  the  alternative  of  payment  of  a 
small  sum  of  money  is,  in  effect,  to  demand  payment  of 
that  sum.  .  .  .  The  cost  of  preparing  the  bond  and  ap- 
proving sureties,  with  the  troubles  incident  to  it  in  each 
case,  is  greater  than  the  sum  required  to  be  paid  as  com- 
mutation. It  is  inevitable,  under  such  a  law,  that  the 
money  would  be  paid  for  each  passenger,  or  the  statute 
resisted  or  evaded.  It  is  a  law  in  its  purpose  and  effect 
imposing  a  tax  on  the  owner  of  the  vessel  for  the  privilege 
of  landing  in  New  York  passengers  transported  from- 
foreign  countries.  ... 

'Tt  is  equally  clear  that  the  matter  of  these  statutes 
may  be,  and  ought  to  be,  the  subject  of  a  uniform  system 
or  plan.  The  laws  which  govern  the  right  to  land  pas- 
sengers in  the  United  States  from  other  countries  ought 
to  be  the  same  in  New  York,  Boston,  New  Orleans,  and  San 
Francisco.  ... 

"We  are  of  opinion  that  this  whole  subject  has  been 
confided  to  Congress  by  the  constitution;  that  Congress 
can  more  appropriately  and  with  more  acceptance  exercise 
it  than  any  other  body  known  to  our  law.  State  or  national; 
that  by  providing  a  system  of  laws  in  these  matters,  applic- 
able to  all  ports  and  to  all  vessels,  a  serious  question,  which 
has  long  been  a  matter  of  contest  and  complaint,  may 
be  effectually  and  satisfactorily  settled." 

Despite  this  decision  declaring  the  commutation  system 
unconstitutional.  New  York  made  another  attempt  in  1881 
to  find  a  constitutional  method  of  collecting  ''head  money" 
by  passing  a  law  which  provided  for  the  collection  of  one 
dollar  for  inspection  purposes.  This  act  was  also  declared 
unconstitutional  in  People  v.  Compagnie  Generale  Trans- 
Atlantique.^^ 

Mr.  Justice  Miller  again  delivered  the  opinion  of  the 
court,  in  which  he  stated:  ''It  is  apparent  that  the  object 

"  107  U.  S.  59,  decided  February  5,  1883. 


POWER  OF  CONGRESS  OVER  IMMIGRATION  81 


of  these  New  York  enactments  goes  far  beyond  any  correct 
view  of  the  purpose  of  an  inspection  law.  The  commis- 
sioners are  'To  inspect  all  persons  arriving  from  any  foreign 
country,  to  ascertain  who  among  them  are  habitual  crim- 
inals, or  pauper  lunatics,  idiots  or  imbeciles  or  orphan  per- 
sons, without  means  or  capacity  to  support  themselves  and 
subject  to  become  a  public  charge.'  It  may  safely  be  said 
that  these  are  matters  incapable  of  being  satisfactorily 
ascertained  by  inspection.  ...  In  fact,  these  statutes 
differ  from  those  heretofore  held  void,  only  in  calling  them 
in  their  caption  'inspection  laws,'  and  in  providing  for  pay- 
ment of  any  surplus,  after  the  support  of  paupers,  criminals 
and  diseased  persons,  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United 
States;  a  surplus  which  it  is  safe  to  say  will  never  exist. 
A  State  cannot  make  a  law  designed  to  raise  money  to 
support  paupers,  to  detect  or  prevent  crime,  to  guard 
against  disease,  and  to  cure  the  sick,  an  inspection  law, 
within  the  constitutional  meaning  of  that  word,--  by  call- 
ing it  so  in  the  title.  Since  the  decision  of  this  case  in 
the  circuit  court,  Congress  has  undertaken  to  do  what  this 
court  has  repeatedly  said  it  alone  had  the  power  to  do.  .  .  . 
This  legislation  covers  the  same  ground  as  the  New  York 
statute,  and  they  cannot  co-exist." 

These  two  decisions  were  the  death  blow  to  all  future 
efforts  of  the  States  to  regulate  immigration  and  to  ex- 
clude certain  undesirable  classes.  Since  the  Supreme  Court 
had  held  ''that  Congress  can  more  appropriately  and  with 
more  acceptance  exercise  it  than  any  other  body  known  to 
our  law,  State  or  national,"  the  Federal  Government  soon 
embarked  upon  a  national  policy  of  regulating  immigration, 
which  has  resulted  in  restriction  after  restriction,  until 
at  the  present  time  we  have  what  may  be  called  "a  drastic 
immigration  law."  This  transition  from  State  to  national 
control  of  immigration  was  inevitable,  for  the  problem  had 
become  a  national  one,  requiring  uniform  legislation.  State 
legislation  had  been  sufficient  when  the  tide  of  immigra- 
tion was  not  so  strong.   But  the  time  had  now  come  when 

"Article  I,  Section  10,  Clause  2  ofthe  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 


82 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


the  States  could  no  longer  handle  the  situation  under  their 
police  powers.  With  the  constitutional  issue  over  authority 
settled  for  all  time  by  these  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
the  Federal  Government  was  in  a  position  to  deal  with  the 
problem  as  it  saw  fit.  It  is  only  natural  that  its  first 
legislation  should  have  had  as  its  purpose  the  exclusion  of 
certain  undesirable  classes.  It  was  also  inevitable  that 
some  time  would  be  required  before  satisfactory  legislation 
could  be  passed.  The  problem  was  also  complicated  by  the 
coming  of  the  ^'new"  immigration,  which  became  a  problem 
only  after  the  period  of  Federal  legislation  had  begun. 
However,  the  Federal  Government  took  steps  toward  legis- 
lation following  the  above  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court. 
Into  a  study  of  this  Federal  legislation,  we  shall  enter  in 
the  following  chapters. 


CHAPTER  IV 


Federal  Immigration  Legislation  to  1914  ^ 

Early  Acts  of  Congress— Act  of  1875— Act  of  1882— Acts  of  1885,  1887,  1888 
—Ford  Committee  Report— Act  of  1891— Acts  of  1893— Act  of  1894— Rec- 
ommendations of  President  Roosevelt  in  1901 — Act  of  1903 — Minor  Acts — 
Act  of  1907— Act  of  1910— Act  of  1913— Conclusions. 

On  March  2,  1819,  Congress  passed  what  can  be  desig- 
nated as  the  first  federal  legislation  on  the  subject  of  immi- 
gration. The  provision  of  permanent  benefit  and  hence 
of  importance  in  this  act  was  the  stipulation  that  at  the 
port  of  landing  a  full  and  complete  report  or  manifest  was 
to  be  made  by  the  ship's  officer  to  the  customs  authorities, 
which  was  to  state  the  number  of  passengers  carried,  to- 
gether with  the  name,  sex,  age,  and  occupation  of  each. 
This  resulted  in  official  statistics  being  collected  for  the 
first  time  for  the  year  ending  September  30,  1820.  Since 
then  we  have  a  continuous  record  of  all  arrivals,  increasing 
in  detail  with  subsequent  legal  requirements.  Another 
provision  undertook  to  lessen  the  evils  resulting  from  the 
intolerable  overcrowding  on  ships  bringing  immigrants  into 
the  United  States.  It  limited  the  number  of  passengers 
which  might  be  carried  on  any  ship  to  two  to  every  five 
tons  of  the  ship's  weight.  Furthermore,  each  ship  or  vessel 
leaving  an  American  port  was  to  have  on  board  for  each 
passenger  carried  sixty  gallons  of  water,  one  gallon  of 
vinegar,  one  hundred  pounds  of  salted  provisions,  and  one 
hundred  pounds  of  wholesome  ship  bread.    'Tt  is  very 

*  Most  standard  books  on  the  subject  of  immigration  deal  at  length  with 
the  period  of  Federal  legislation  thru  the  Act  of  1917.  Hence  only  investi- 
gations, reports  and  laws  are  dealt  with  in  Chapters  IV  and  V.  Our  pur- 
pose is  merely  to  trace  the  expansion  of  these  laws  in  order  to  better 
understand  the  present  situation,  which  is  but  a  part  of  the  continuous 
development  of  restrictions  against  immigration. 

83 


84 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


doubtful  how  much  good  either  of  these  provisions  ever 
did  to  the  immigrants.  The  clause  in  regard  to  over- 
crowding, based  as  it  was  merely  on  the  ship's  total  weight, 
was  wholly  inadequate  to  prevent  extreme  overcrowding 
in  such  parts  of  the  vessel  as  might  be  assigned  to  pas- 
sengers. And  as  far  as  the  provision  regarding  supplies 
is  concerned,  it  could  have  been  of  no  help  to  the  immi- 
grants, as  it  applied  only  to  ships  leaving  an  American 
port."2 

Despite  the  horrible  conditions  existing  on  the  ships,  no 
further  legislation  was  passed  until  1847,  when,  on  Febru- 
ary 22,  Congress  passed  a  law  superseding  that  of  1819, 
its  purpose  being  to  remedy  the  evils  of  overcrowding.^ 
The  law  was  very  unsatisfactory  and  was  superseded  by 
the  act  of  May  17,  1848,  which  remained  in  force  until 
1855.  In  the  mean  time  the  British  Government  in  1849 
passed  a  law  which  undertook  to  remedy  the  same  evils. 
However,  conditions  were  but  very  little  improved,  so  that 
in  1853  a  select  committee  of  the  Senate  was  appointed 
to  investigate  the  conditions  of  steerage  immigration  and, 
in  particular,  ''the  causes  and  the  extent  of  the  sickness  and 
mortality  prevailing  on  board  the  emigrant  ships  on  the 
voyage  to  this  country,"  and  to  determine  what  legisla- 
tion, if  any,  was  necessary  to  secure  better  conditions.  The 
committee's  report  of  August  2,  1854  *  resulted  in  the  en- 
actment of  a  law  March  3,  1855,  which,  with  slight  modifica- 
tions, governed  the  carriage  of  immigrants  up  to  1882.  The 
act  of  1855  limited  the  number  that  could  be  brought  to 
one  for  every  two  tons,  not  including  children  under  one 
year,  and  counted  two  children  between  one  and  eight  years 
of  age  as  one  person.  It  also  provided  that  each  passenger 
on  the  main  and  poop  decks  of  vessels  should  have  sixteen 
feet  of  floor  space,  and  on  the  lower  decks  eighteen  feet. 
Concerning  this  act  the  Immigration  Commission  stated; 
"Theoretically  the  law  of  1855  provided  for  an  increased 

'  Fairchild,  op.  cit.,  p.  66. 

'  Sec  Abbott,  Immigration,  Section  I,  for  a  number  of  original  documents 
dealing  with  steerage  conditions  1751-1882. 
*  See  Senate  Committee  Report  No.  386,  33rd  Congress,  1st  session. 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION  TO  1914  85 


air  space,  better  ventilation,  and  improved  accommodations 
in  the  way  of  berths,  cooking  facilities,  the  serving  of  food, 
free  open  deck  space,  and  so  forth.  Although  the  evil 
of  overcrowding,  which  had  been  attended  with  such  dis- 
astrous results  in  former  years,  appears  to  have  been  espe- 
cially aimed  at  by  the  makers  of  the  law,  the  wording  of  the 
act  was,  unfortunately,  such  that  the  provisions  relating  to 
the  number  of  passengers  to  be  carried  were  inoperative, 
as  far  as  the  United  States  law  was  concerned,  between 
1855  and  1882."  ^ 

In  1860  an  act  was  passed  amending  the  steerage  law 
which  was  designed  to  secure  much-needed  protection  for 
female  passengers  from  immoral  conduct  on  the  part  of 
members  of  the  crew.  A  fine  of  $1,000  was  imposed  on 
any  person  employed  on  any  ship  of  the  United  States 
who  was  found  guilty  of  such  conduct,  and  members  of 
the  crew  were  forbidden  to  visit  parts  of  the  ship  assigned 
to  immigrants,  except  under  the  direction  or  with  the  per- 
mission of  the  commanding  officer. 

Another  law,  the  Act  of  1864,  deserves  mention.  It  pro- 
vided that  the  President  should  appoint  a  ''Commissioner 
of  Immigration";  that  immigrants  might  assign  their 
wages  for  a  year  or  less  or  encumber  their  land  in  order  to 
pay  the  expenses  of  emigrating;  that  no  immigrant,  unless 
he  should  declare  his  intention  to  become  a  citizen,  should 
be  liable  to  military  service  in  the  Civil  War;  that  a  United 
States  Emigrant  Office  should  be  established  in  New  York 
City,  and  the  superintendent  should  make  contracts  with 
railroads  and  transportation  companies  for  carrying  immi- 
grants to  their  destination,  and  should  provide  them  with 
all  needed  information ;  and  that  the  Commissioner  should 
furnish  an  annual  report  to  Congress  of  the  workings  of 
his  bureau.  However,  this  act  was  in  the  nature  of  a  War 
measure,  designed  to  fill  the  places  of  the  men  sent  to  the 
front,  and  since  the  necessity  for  its  continuation  ceased 
when  the  men  in  the  army  re-entered  peaceful  pursuits,  it 
was  repealed  in  1868. 

•Rept.  Imm.  Com.,  Steerage  Legislation,  abs.,  p.  11. 


86 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


The  next  exercise  of  the  power  of  Congress  over  immi- 
gration was  not  in  order  to  regulate  immigration  generally, 
but  to  suppress  one  specific  evil,  the  coolie  trade.  The  Act 
of  February  19,  1862 «  and  the  Act  of  February  9, 
1869/  which  prohibited  the  building,  equipping,  loading, 
or  preparing  any  vessel  licensed,  enrolled,  or  registered  in 
the  United  States  for  procuring  coolies  from  any  Oriental 
country  to  be  held  for  service  or  labor,  were  not  specifically 
directed  against  the  Chinese  as  such,  but  against  a  grade 
of  cheap  Oriental  labor  imported  largely  under  a  system 
of  contract  which  amounted  to  a  species  of  slavery.  Vessels 
employed  in  the  coolie  trade  were  to  be  forfeited,  and  the 
building  of  vessels  to  engage  in  this  trade,  as  well  as  the 
trade  itself,  was  made  a  criminal  offense.  The  act  did  not, 
however,  interfere  with  the  voluntary  emigration  of  coolies 
or  others  if  a  certificate  had  been  made  before  the  consular 
agent  of  the  United  States,  at  the  port  of  departure,  certify- 
ing to  the  fact  of  such  voluntary  emigration. 

However,  the  period  of  Federal  legislation,  which  has 
resulted  in  the  growth  of  a  complicated  body  of  federal 
immigration  laws,  may  be  said  to  have  really  begun  with 
the  act  of  March  3,  1875,  although  it  is  also  sometimes 
dated  from  the  Act  of  August  3,  1882,  since  the  latter  is 
the  first  inclusive  federal  immigration  law. 

The  act  of  March  3,  1875  ^  prohibited  the  importation  of 
women  for  purposes  of  prostitution  and  alien  convicts.  The 
immigration  of  large  numbers  of  Chinese  laborers  into  the 
Pacific  Coast  States  had  resulted  in  a  demand  for  Chinese 
and  Japanese  prostitutes  and  certain  persons  were  making 
it  a  business  to  import  them.  Section  1  of  the  act  gave 
the  consular  officer  at  the  port  from  which  it  was  proposed 
to  convey  these  women,  authority  to  make  inquiry  as  to 
whether  the  emigration  was  free  and  voluntary  or  whether 
it  was  under  contract,  the  women  to  be  used  for  lewd  and 
immoral  purposes.  If  the  latter,  then  the  consular  official 
could  not  deliver  the  required  certificate  or  permit  to  the 
master  of  the  vessel.   Any  citizen  of  the  United  States  or 

•  12  Stat.  340.  '  15  Stat.  269.  '  18  Stat  477. 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION  TO  1914  87 


other  person  amenable  to  the  laws  of  the  United  States 
who  transported  subjects  of  China  or  Japan  to  the  United 
States  without  their  free  consent  was  subject  to  fine  and 
imprisonment.  Section  3  declared  the  importation  of 
women  for  purposes  of  prostitution  a  felony  and  the  con- 
tract was  to  be  declared  void.  Section  4  declared  it  to  be  a 
felony  to  import  any  coolie  into  the  United  States.  Section 
5  declared  ''That  it  shall  be  unlawful  for  aliens  of  the  fol- 
lowing classes  to  immigrate  into  the  United  States,  namely, 
persons  who  are  undergoing  a  sentence  for  conviction  in 
their  own  country  of  felonious  crimes  other  than  political 
or  growing  out  of  or  the  result  of  such  political  offenses, 
or  whose  sentence  has  been  remitted  on  condition  of  their 
emigration,  and  women  imported  for  purposes  of  prostitu- 
tion." It  was  necessary  to  exclude  alien  convicts  because 
the  practice  was  still  common  on  the  part  of  certain  coun- 
tries to  remit  sentences  on  the  condition  of  emigration. 
The  act  provided  for  the  search  of  vessels  suspected  of  con- 
taining persons  of  the  excluded  classes  which  applied  to 
immigrants  from  all  countries,  whether  Oriental  or  not,^ 
although  the  facts  are  that  many  continued  to  get  into  the 
United  States.  However,  this  law  was  a  step  forward  in 
the  right  direction  toward  restriction,  for  it  provided  for 
the  exclusion  of  at  least  three  obviously  undesirable  types 
of  immigrants, — the  coolie,  the  alien  convict  and  the  foreign 
prostitute. 

The  enormous  immigration  of  1882,  which  totalled 
788,992,  a  point  which  had  never  been  reached  before  and 
was  not  reached  again  until  1903;  the  agitation  of  the 
laboring  classes,  who  were  adversely  affected  by  it ;  and  the 
important  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  previously  dis- 
cussed, which  declared  State  restrictions  of  immigration 
to  be  illegal  regulations  of  commerce,  led  to  the  passage  in 
that  year  of  the  first  general  immigration  law.  Section  1 
of  the  Act  of  August  3,  1882  provided  that  a  duty  of  fifty 
cents  was  to  be  levied  on  each  and  every  passenger  not  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States  who  came  from  a  foreign  port 

"U.  S.  V.  Johnson,  7  Fed.  Rep.  453  (1881).  "22  Stat.  214. 


88 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


to  any  port  within  the  United  States.  This  duty  was  to  be 
collectible  at  the  port  of  landing  and  paid  into  the  United 
States  Treasury  and  to  be  known  as  the  "immigrant  fund." 
There  was  the  provision  that  "The  money  thus  collected 
shall  be  used  to  defray  the  expense  of  regulating  im- 
migration under  this  act,  and  for  the  care  of  immigrants 
arriving  in  the  United  States,  for  the  relief  of  such  as  are  in 
distress,  and  for  the  general  purposes  and  expenses  of  carry- 
ing this  act  into  effect,  .  .  .  Provided,  That  no  greater  sum 
shall  be  expended  for  the  purposes  hereinbefore  mentioned, 
at  any  port,  than  shall  have  been  collected  at  such  port." 
This  was  the  provision  to  which  Mr.  Justice  Miller  referred 
in  People  v.  Compagnie  Generale  Trans-Atlantique, 
when,  in  declaring  the  inspection  law  of  New  York,  which 
imposed  a  head  tax,  illegal,  he  said,  "the  two  cannot 
co-exist." 

Section  2  provided  "That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
is  hereby  charged  with  the  duty  of  executing  the  provisions 
of  this  act  and  with  supervision  over  the  business  of  im- 
migration into  the  United  States,  and  for  that  purpose  he 
shall  have  power  to  enter  into  contracts  with  such  State 
commissions,  board  or  officers  as  may  be  designated  for  that 
purpose  by  the  governor  of  any  State  to  take  charge  of  the 
local  affairs  of  immigration  in  the  ports  within  the  said 
State."  The  examination  of  the  condition  of  passengers 
on  arrival  was  made  the  duty  of  the  State  boards  or  com- 
missions. This  section  also  extended  the  number  of  ex- 
cluded classes  as  follows:  "if  on  such  examination  there 
shall  be  found  among  such  passengers  any  convict,  lunatic, 
idiot  or  any  person  unable  to  take  care  of  himself  or  her- 
self without  becoming  a  public  charge,  they  shall  report 
the  same  in  writing  to  the  collector  of  such  port,  and  such 
persons  shall  not  be  permitted  to  land."  Section  3  em- 
powered the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  make  proper  pro- 
visions to  protect  immigrants  from  fraud  and  loss,  and  to 
carry  out  the  law.  Section  4  stated,  "That  all  foreign  con- 
victs except  those  convicted  of  political  offenses,  upon  ar- 
rival, shall  be  sent  back  to  the  nations  to  which  they  be- 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION  TO  1914  89 


long  and  from  whence  they  came."  Section  5  provided, 
"That  this  act  shall  take  effect  immediately." 

The  important  things  to  note  in  this  act  of  1882  are  (1) 
the  imposition  of  a  federal  head  tax;  (2)  the  extension  of 
the  excluded  classes  to  include  lunatics,  idiots,  and  per- 
sons likely  to  become  a  public  charge;  (3)  the  return  of 
excluded  aliens  at  the  expense  of  the  ship  owners;  and 
(4)  the  assignment  of  the  responsibility  for  the  execution 
of  the  immigration  laws  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
although  State  commissions  were  to  continue  to  do  the 
actual  work  of  examination.  In  this  act  Congress  put  up 
several  bars  to  exclude  certain  undesirable  classes  and  to 
check  immigration.  This  was  indeed  a  big  and  important 
step  forward, — the  first  one  of  any  real  importance,  either 
state  or  national. 

The  next  act  dealing  with  the  subject  of  immigration 
was  section  22  of  the  act  of  July  26,  1884,  '^An  act  to  remove 
certain  burdens  on  the  American  merchant  marine,  etc.,"^^ 
which  was  designed  to  eliminate  a  discrimination  against 
the  water  transportation  in  favor  of  land  transportation 
from  Canada  and  Mexico.  It  provided  that  until  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Act  of  August  3,  1882,  ''shall  be  made  applic- 
able to  passengers  coming  into  the  United  States  by  land 
carriage,  said  provisions  shall  not  apply  to  passengers 
coming  by  vessels  employed  exclusively  in  the  trade  be- 
tween the  ports  of  the  United  States  and  the  ports  of  the 
Dominion  of  Canada  or  the  ports  of  Mexico."  It  was 
obvious  that  if  persons  from  these  countries,  who  came 
by  water,  were  subject  to  the  same  tax  and  to  the  same 
examination  and  restrictions  as  immigrants  from  European 
countries,  they  would  when  possible,  come  by  means  of 
land  transportation. ^2 

"23  Stat.  58. 

"For.  Rel.  1888,  I,  808-9,  or  Moore's  Digest,  Vol.  IV,  p.  163,  gives  an 
interesting  case.  Concerning  the  settlement  of  a  number  of  Indians  in 
British  Columbia  within  the  territory  of  Alaska,  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  stated  that  as  section  1  of  the  Act  of  August  3,  1882  applied  only 
to  passengers  who  should  "come  by  steam  or  sail  vessel  from  a  foreign  port 
to  any  port  within  the  United  States,"  and  section  22  of  the  Act  of  June  26, 
1884,  in  effect  abolished  the  capitation  tax  on  immigrants  from  contiguous 
foreign  territory,  the  immigration  in  question  was  not  unlawful. 


90 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


The  Act  of  February  26,  1885  forbade  the  immigration 
of  ahens  under  contract  to  labor.  By  section  1  it  was  made 
"unlawful  for  any  person,  company,  partnership,  or  corpora- 
tion, in  any  manner  whatsoever,  to  prepay  the  transporta- 
tion, or  in  any  way  assist  or  encourage  the  importation  or 
migration  of  any  alien  or  aliens,  any  foreigner  or  foreigners, 
into  the  United  States,  its  Territories,  or  the  District  ol 
Columbia,  under  contract  or  agreement,  parol  or  special, 
express  or  implied,  made  previous  to  the  importation  or 
migration  of  such  alien  or  aliens,  foreigner  or  foreigners,  to 
perform  labor  or  service  of  any  kind  in  the  United  States, 
its  Territories,  or  the  District  of  Columbia." 

By  section  2  all  such  contracts  or  agreements  were  de- 
clared to  be  ''utterly  void  and  of  no  effect."  By  section  3 
a  penalty  of  $1,000  was  imposed  on  every  violation  of  the 
first  section,  the  fine  to  be  paid  by  the  person,  partnership, 
company,  or  corporation  violating  the  law. 

Section  4  provided  that  "the  master  of  any  vessel  who 
shall  knowingly  bring  within  the  United  States  on  any  such 
vessel,  and  land,  or  permit  to  be  landed,  from  any  foreign 
port  or  place,  any  alien  laborer,  mechanic,  or  artisan  who, 
previous  to  embarkation  on  such  vessel,  had  entered  into 
contract  or  agreement,  parol  or  special,  express  or  implied, 
to  perform  labor  or  service  in  the  United  States,  shall  be 
deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  on  conviction  there- 
of, shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than  five  hun- 
dred dollars  for  each  and  every  such  alien  laborer,  mechanic 
or  artisan  so  brought  as  aforesaid,  and  may  also  be  im- 
prisoned for  a  term  not  exceeding  six  months." 

Section  5  provided  for  the  following  exception  from  the 
provisions  of  the  law:  "That  nothing  in  this  act  shall  be 
so  construed  as  to  prevent  any  citizen  or  subject  of  any 
foreign  country  temporarily  residing  in  the  United  States, 
either  in  private  or  official  capacity,  from  engaging,  under 
contract  or  otherwise,  persons  not  residents  or  citizens  of 
the  United  States  to  act  as  private  secretaries,  servants, 
or  domestics  for  such  foreigners  temporarily  residing  in  the 
United  States  as  aforesaid;  nor  shall  this  act  be  so  con- 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION  TO  1914  91 


strued  as  to  prevent  any  person,  or  persons,  partnership, 
or  corporation  from  engaging,  under  contract  or  agreement, 
skilled  workmen  in  foreign  countries  to  perform  labor  in  the 
United  States  in  or  upon  any  new  industry  not  at  present 
^established  in  the  United  States:  Provided,  That  skilled 
labor  for  that  purpose  cannot  be  otherwise  obtained;  nor 
shall  the  provisions  of  this  act  apply  to  professional  actors, 
artists,  lecturers,  or  singers,  nor  to  persons  employed  strictly 
as  personal  or  domestic  servants:  Provided,  That  nothing 
:in  this  act  shall  be  construed  as  prohibiting  any  individ- 
ual from  assisting  any  member  of  his  family  or  any  rela- 
tive or  personal  friend,  to  migrate  from  any  foreign  coun- 
try to  the  United  States,  for  the  purpose  of  settlement 
here." 

'^'This  act  of  February  26,  1885  is  popularly  known  as  the 
"Ahen  Contract  Labor  Law."  After  the  recovery  from 
the  panic  of  1873,  there  was  a  marked  growth  in  the  ranks 
of  organized  labor  due  to  the  fact  that  industrial  enter- 
prises, especially  mining,  developed  rapidly.  Conflicts 
between  the  employers  and  the  employees  were  the  in- 
evitable result.  In  order  to  resist  the  demands  of  the  latter, 
the  employers  began  to  import  from  Europe  large  numbers 
of  laborers  under  contract  to  work  for  lower  wages  than  the 
labor  unions  asked  and  demanded.  This  resulted  in  pres- 
sure being  put  on  Congress  to  pass  legislation  to  prevent 
such  importation  of  unskilled  labor  under  contract  which 
was  always  willing  and  able  to  accept  lower  wages  since 
its  standard  of  living  was  lower  than  that  of  American 
labor.  Congress  heeded  the  demand  when  it  passed  the 
above  law,  the  constitutionality  of  which  was  upheld  by  the 
courts  under  the  commerce  clause  in  the  Constitution. 
However,  the  courts  pointed  out  a  weakness  to  be  remedied 
when  it  was  held  that  an  offer  to  employ  followed  by  the 

"The  following  cases  have  dealt  with  the  contract  labor  provision:  U.  S. 
V.  Craig,  28  Fed.  Rep.  795  (1886) ;  Re  Florio,  43  Fed.  Rep.  114  (1890) ;  Lees 
V.  U.  S.,  150  U.  S.  476  (1893) ;  Church  of  the  Holy  Trinity  v.  United  States, 
143  U.  S.  Reports  457  (1892)  ;  Botis  v.  Davies  et  al.,  Immigration  Inspectors, 
1.73  Fed.  Rep.  996  (1909);  United  States  v.  International  Silver  Company, 
2/1  l  ed.  Rep.  925  (1921). 


92 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


immigration  of  the  alien  did  not  violate  the  provisions  of 
the  law  against  contract  labor,  since  the  contract  had  not 
been  fully  and  directly  made.  Under  this  interpretation 
employers  desiring  to  import  labor  soon  found  the  means 
to  let  it  be  known  that  employment  was  to  be  had  at  such 
and  such  a  place,  without  making  a  contrac^t,  if  the  un- 
skilled labor  desired  would  emigrate  there.Vf/  While  it  is 
sometimes  argued  that  it  would  be  very  difficult  for  any 
person  who  had  the  slightest  idea  of  what  he  was  going  to 
do  in  this  country  to  prove  himself  outside  the  letter  of  the 
law,  yet  it  is  not  difficult  to  draw  the  line  between  immigra- 
tion which  has  been  assured  of  employment  at  certain 
places,  especially  when  the  assurance  has  come  from  an 
agent  who  is  paid  a  bonus,  and  immigration  that  comes 
without  such  an  artificial  inducement.^^ 

By  the  Act  of  February  23,  1887,  the  execution  of  the 
Act  of  February  26,  1885  was  committed  to  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  who  ''shall  establish  such  regulations 
and  rules,  and  issue  from  time  to  time  such  instructions,  not 
inconsistent  with  the  law,  as  he  shall  deem  best  calculated 
for  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  this  act/'  and  it  provided 
''that  all  persons  included  in  the  prohibition  in  this  act, 
upon  arrival,  shall  be  sent  back  to  the  nations  to  which 
they  belong  and  from  whence  they  came.  .  .  .  The  expense 
of  such  return  of  the  aforesaid  persons  not  permitted  to 
land  shall  be  borne  by  the  owners  of  the  vessels  in  which 
they  came."^^ 

By  the  Act  of  October  19,  1888,  the  Act  of  February  23, 
1887  was  "so  amended  as  to  authorize  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  in  case  he  shall  be  satisfied  that  an  immigrant 
has  been  allowed  to  land  contrary  to  the  prohibition  of  the 

"  See  Extract  from  "Immigration,"  Reports  of  the  U.  S.  Industrial  Com- 
mission, XV  (1901),  pp.  647-48  for  a  discussion  of  the  difficulties  under  the 
contract  labor  legislation. 

"  For  typical  cases  under  the  contract  labor  law  see  the  Annual  Report 
of  the  Commissioner-General  of  Immigration  for  1908,  pp.  130-133.  See 
also  his  report  for  1914  for  an  account  of  some  contract  labor  cases  in 
whif'h  lurgc  fines  were  assessed. 

"  24  Stat.  414. 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION  TO  1914  93 


ilaw,  to  cause  such  immigrant  within  the  period  of  one  year 
I  after  landing  or  entry,  to  be  taken  into  custody  and  re- 
turned to  the  country  from  whence  he  came,  at  the  expense 
of  the  owner  of  the  importing  vessel,  or,  if  he  entered  from 
I  an  adjoining  country,  at  the  expense  of  the  person  pre- 
viously contracting  for  his  services."^'''  This  provision  is 
important  in  that  it  again  introduced  the  principle  of  de- 
portation after  landing,  a  principle  to  be  distinguished  from 
exclusion  or  restriction  of  immigration.  The  acts  of  1887 
iand  1888  were  amendatory  to  the  Alien  Contract  Labor 
Law.  Taken  together  the  wording  is  strict  and  very  inclu- 
sive. The  burden  of  proof  is  upon  the  immigrant. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  on  May  17,  1889  the  Swiss 
minister  at  Washington  brought  to  the  attention  of  the 
Deparment  of  State  the  case  of  certain  citizens  of  Switzer- 
land whom  the  authorities  at  New  York  had  refused  to 
permit  to  land  under  the  laws  then  existing  and  had  caused 
to  be  sent  back  to  Europe.  ^'The  minister  stated  that  by 
the  Swiss  federal  law  of  March  22,  1888,  it  was  provided 
that  emigration  agencies  should  not  ship  to  foreign  coun- 
tries any  persons  who  were  not  allowed  to  enter  there 
by  the  laws  in  force  in  such  countries.  For  such  sending 
the  law  provided  appropriate  penalties.  The  minister 
therefore  requested  to  be  advised  of  the  exact  reasons  why 
the  persons  in  question  had  not  been  allowed  to  land.  It 
appeared  by  investigation  that  two  of  them  were  sent  back 
because  they  were  unable  to  take  care  of  themselves,  and 
were  likely  to  become  a  public  charge;  that  another  was 
subject  to  the  same  objections,  besides  being  a  convict, 
who  had  served  a  term  of  imprisonment  in  Switzerland, 
while  three  others  were  returned  as  paupers."^^  This  cor- 
I  respondence  not  only  recognized  the  right  of  the  United 
States  to  exclude  immigrants,  but  it  also  indicates  that  the 
,  laws  were  working  to  exclude  at  least  some  undesirables. 

However,  that  the  enforcement  of  these  laws  was  not 

"25  Stat.  566. 

"Moore's  Digest,  Vol.  IV,  p.  164,  or  For.  Rcl.  1889,  701-2 


94 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


what  it  should  have  been  is  evident  from  the  "Report  of 
the  lord  Committee,  the  Select  Committee  to  Inquire  into 
the  importation  of  Contract  Laborers,  Convicts,  Paupers, 
etc.  January,  1889."^^  This  report  stated:  ''Owing  to 
the  large  number  of  immigrants  received  each  day  during 
the  spring  and  summer  months  questions  must  be  asked 
rapidly,  and  the  inspection  is  necessarily  done  in  a  very 
hurried  manner,  in  order  that  there  may  be  no  undue  delay 
in  landing  them.  .  .  .  The  testimony  taken  puts  it  beyond 
doubt  that  large  numbers  of  persons  not  lawfully  entitled 
to  land  in  the  United  States  are  annually  received.  .  .  . 
New  York  State  annually  expends  in  taking  care  of  paupers, 
insane  persons,  etc.,  $20,000,000,  and  this  condition  of 
affairs  is  largely  due  to  improper  immigration.  .  .  .  Along 
the  border  between  Canada  and  the  United  States  no  in- 
spection whatever  is  made  of  immigrants;  and  alien 
paupers,  insane  persons,  etc.,  may  land  at  Quebec  and  at 
once  proceed  to  this  country  without  any  let  or  hindrance. 
.  .  .  Many  persons  belonging  to  the  criminal  class  have 
been  sent  to  the  United  States  by  officials  of  the  European 
Governments  and  they  have  persisted  in  this  course  even 
after  having  been  requested  by  officials  of  our  government 
to  discontinue  it.  .  .  .  Evasions  of  the  contract  labor  law 
are  much  more  numerous  than  convictions.  ...  In  the 
opinion  of  the  committee  the  non-enforcement  of  these  acts 
is  not  so  much  due  to  a  want  of  diligence  on  the  part  of  the 
officials  having  their  administration  in  charge  as  it  is  to 
a  lack  of  proper  machinery  to  carry  them  into  effect.  The 
committee  believe  that  the  enforcement  of  all  acts  designed 
to  regulate  immigration  should  be  intrusted  to  the  Federal 
Government  and  not  to  the  States.  The  regulation  of  im- 
migration is  a  matter  affecting  the  whole  Union,  and  is  pre- 
eminently a  proper  subject  for  Federal  control.  .  . 

An  increase  in  immigration  after  1886,  until  in  1891  it 
had  reached  more  than  560,000,  together  with  the  ascer- 
tained inefficiency  of  the  laws  passed  up  to  that  time,  led  to 
a  general  codification  and  strengthening  of  the  various 

""SOth  Congross,  2nd  Sossion,  House  Report,  No.  3792. 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION  TO  1914  95 


statutes  in  the  Act  of  March  3,  1891.  This  act  added  to  the 
excluded  classes  paupers,  persons  suffering  from  a  loath- 
some or  dangerous  contagious  disease,  polygamists  and  per- 
sons whose  tickets  of  passage  had  been  paid  for  by  another 
or  who  had  been  assisted  by  others  to  come,  unless  it  was 
affirmatively  shown  on  special  inquiry  that  they  were  not 
otherwise  objectionable.  Under  this  act  then  the  number 
of  excluded  classes  had  increased  to  seven,  other  than 
Chinese  laborers.  These  were  all  idiots,  insane  persons, 
paupers  or  persons  likely  to  become  a  public  charge,  persons 
suffering  from  a  loathsome  or  dangerous  contagious  disease, 
persons  who  had  been  convicted  of  a  felony  or  other  in- 
famous crime  or  misdemeanor  involving  moral  inturpitude, 
polygamists  and  assisted  immigrants.  However,  section  1 
stated:  "but  this  section  shall  not  be  held  to  exclude  persons 
living  in  the  United  States  from  sending  for  a  relative  or 
friend  who  is  not  of  the  excluded  classes  under  such  regula- 
tions as  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  may  prescribe:  Pro- 
vided, That  nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  to  apply 
to  or  exclude  persons  convicted  of  a  political  offense,  not- 
withstanding said  political  offense  may  be  designated  as  a 
'felony,  crime,  infamous  crime,  or  misdemeanor,  involving 
moral  inturpitude'  by  the  laws  of  the  land  whence  he  came 
or  by  the  court  convicting." 

Section  3  deemed  it  a  violation  of  the  Act  of  February 
26,  1885  ''to  assist  or  encourage  the  importation  or  migra- 
tion of  any  alien  by  promise  of  employment  through  adver- 
tisements printed  and  published  in  any  foreign  country; 
and  any  alien  coming  to  this  country  in  consequence  of  such 
an  advertisement  shall  be  treated  as  coming  under  a  con- 
tract as  contemplated  by  such  act."-^ 

Section  4  provided  that  "no  steamship  or  transportation 
company  or  owner  of  vessels  shall  directly,  or  through 
agents,  either  by  writing,  printing,  or  oral  representations, 
solicit,  invite,  or  encourage  the  immigration  of  any  alien 
into  the  LTnited  States  except  by  ordinary  commercial 
letters,  circulars,  advertisements,  or  oral  representatives, 

"^U.  S.  V.  Baltic  Mills  Co.,  124  Fed.  Rep.  38  (1903)  upheld  this. 


96 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


stating  the  sailings  of  their  vessels  and  the  terms  and  facili- ■ 
ties  of  transportation  therein."  Thus,  soliciting  of  immi-; 
gration  was  forbidden,  a  violation  of  which  was  subject  to 
the  same  penalties  as  those  imposed  by  the  third  section 
of  the  Act  of  February  26,  1885.  However,  despite  the  law, 
violations  continued,  the  immigrants  being  well-coached 
and  warned  on  the  subject  so  as  to  make  it  difficult  to 
obtain  the  evidence  necessary  in  many  cases  to  justify 
deportation. 

By  section  5  the  fifth  section  of  the  Act  of  February  26, 
1885  is  ''amended  by  adding  to  the  second  proviso  in  said 
section  the  words  'nor  to  ministers  of  any  religious  denom- 
ination, nor  persons  belonging  to  any  recognized  profession, 
nor  professors  for  colleges  and  seminaries,'  and  by  exclud- 
ing from  the  second  proviso  of  said  section  the  words  'or 
any  relative  or  personal  friend.'  " 

By  section  6,  the  bringing  into  or  landing  in  the  United 
States,  or  the  aiding  in  so  doing,  by  vessel  or  otherwise, 
of  any  alien  not  lawfully  entitled  to  enter  is  made  a  mis- 
demeanor, punishable  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  $1,000,  or 
by  imprisonment  not  exceeding  a  year,  or  both. 

Section  7  created  the  office  of  superintendent  of  immigra- 
tion in  the  Treasury  Department. 

By  section  8,  provision  is  made  for  the  medical  inspec- 
tion of  alien  immigrants  by  surgeons  of  the  Marine  Hos- 
pital Service;  and  it  declared  that  "all  decisions  made  by 
the  inspection  officers  or  their  assistants  touching  the  right 
of  an  alien  to  land,  when  adverse  to  such  right,  shall  be 
final  unless  appeal  be  taken  to  the  superintendent  of  immi- 
gration, whose  action  shall  be  subject  to  review  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury.''  This  section  enlarged  the  scope 
of  the  Immigration  Bureau's  work  in  that  it  took  away  the 
power  of  inspection  from  the  state  boards  and  commissions, 
and  it  also  took  away  from  the  courts  the  power  to  revise 
the  decision  of  immigration  officers  that  an  immigrant 
should  not  be  permitted  to  land,^^  but  it  was  held  later 
that  the  courts  had  the  power  to  pass  upon  the  ques- 

"Ekiu  V.  United  States,  142  U.  S.  651  (1892), 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION  TO  1914  97 


tion  whether  the  petitioner  were  an  alien  immigrant  or 
not.22 

By  the  same  section  ''the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
may  prescribe  rules  for  inspection  along  the  borders  of 
Canada,  British  Columbia,  and  Mexico  so  as  not  to  obstruct 
or  unnecessarily  delay,  impede,  or  annoy  passengers  in 
ordinary  travel  between  said  countries."  In  the  same  sec- 
tion was  the  provision  that  any  officer  or  agent  or  person  in 
charge  of  a  vessel,  who  shall  knowingly  or  negligently  land 
or  permit  to  land  any  alien  immigrant  at  a  place  or  time 
other  than  that  designated  by  the  inspection  officers,  may 
be  punished  as  for  a  misdemeanor,  as  under  Section  6. 

By  Section  9,  local  peace  officers  are  permitted  to  make 
arrests  for  crimes  under  the  local  laws  at  immigrant  sta- 
tions. 

Section  10  provided  that  ''all  aliens  who  may  unlawfully 
come  into  the  United  States  shall,  if  practicable,  be  im- 
mediately sent  back  on  the  vessel  by  which  they  were 
brought  in,"  the  cost  of  their  return,  including  their  main- 
tenance while  on  land,  to  be  borne  by  the  owners ;  and  any 
master,  agent,  consignee  or  owner  refusing  to  perform  these 
duties  is  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  punishable  with  a  fine 
of  not  less  than  $300  for  each  and  every  offense,  besides 
refusal  of  clearance  to  the  vessel  while  the  fine  is  unpaid. 

Section  11  stated,  "That  any  alien  who  shall  come  into 
the  United  States  in  violation  of  law  may  be  returned  as 
by  law  provided,  at  any  time  within  one  year  thereafter,  at 
the  expense  of  the  person  or  persons,  vessel,  transportation 
company,  or  corporation  bringing  such  alien  into  the  United 
States,  and  if  that  cannot  be  done,  then  at  the  expense  of 
the  United  States;  and  any  alien  who  becomes  a  public 
charge  within  one  year  after  his  arrival  in  the  United  States 
from  causes  existing  prior  to  his  landing  therein  shall  be 
deemed  to  have  come  in  violation  of  law  and  shall  be  re- 
turned as  aforesaid." 

By  Section  12,  all  proceedings,  criminal  or  civil,  begun 

"Re  Simone,  108  Fed.  Rep.  942  (1901).  Sec  Quon  Quon  Poy  v.  Johnson, 
infra  p.  302,  for  an  important  case  decided  February  21,  1927.  Also  see 
cases  cited  in  note  14  on  p.  140. 


98 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


under  previous  acts,  were  saved;  and  by  Section  13,  the 
United  States  circuit  and  district  courts  *^are  hereby  in- 
vested with  full  and  concurrent  jurisdiction  of  all  causes, 
criminal  and  civil,  arising  under  any  of  the  provisions  of 
this  act;  and  this  act  shall  go  into  effect  on  April  1,  1891.^' 

It  is  obvious  from  the  above  provisions  that  this  was 
the  most  comprehensive  law  ever  passed  up  to  that  time. 
The  important  provisions  were,  (1)  the  extension  of  the 
excluded  classes;  (2)  the  prohibition  of  encouragement  of 
immigration  by  advertising  or  solicitation;  (3)  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  exception  which  had  almost  destroyed  the  former  ji 
law,  which  permitted  persons  here  to  assist  "any  relative- 
or  personal  friend"  to  enter  the  United  States  regardless  of- 
the  alien  contract  labor  law;  (4)  the  requirement  of  mani- 
fests; (5)  the  complete  assumption  of  the  work  of  inspec-  I 
tion  by  the  Federal  Government;  (6)  the  extension  of  the  i 
principle  of  deportation  to  public  charges.   Here  were  im- 
portant  additional  bars  to  immigration.    By  this  act  the  1} 
wall  was  built  considerably  higher  to  check  the  ever-swell-  \ 
ing  tide  of  immigration,  which  since  1880  had  begun  to  flow  \ 
from  a  new  source, — viz.,  from  southern  and  eastern  Europe.  | 

By  the  Act  of  February  15,  1893,-^  which  granted  ad- 
ditional quarantine  powers  and  imposed  additional  duties 
upon  the  Marine  Hospital  Service,  it  was  provided  in  Sec- 
tion 7,  "That  whenever  it  shall  be  shown  to  the  satisfac-  ' 
tion  of  the  President  that  by  reason  of  the  existence  of  : 
cholera  or  other  infectious  or  contagious  diseases  in  a 
foreign  country  there  is  serious  danger  of  the  introduction  , 
of  the  same  into  the  United  States,  and  that  notwithstand-  : 
ing  the  quarantine  defense  this  danger  is  so  increased  by 
the  introduction  of  persons  or  property  from  such  country 
that  a  suspension  of  the  right  to  introduce  the  same  is 
demanded  in  the  interests  of  the  public  health,  the  Presi- 
dent shall  have  the  power  to  prohibit,  in  whole  or  in  part,  ! 
the  introduction  of  persons  and  property  from  such  coun-  ; 
tries  or  places  as  he  shall  designate  and  for  such  period  of  j 
time  as  he  may  deem  necessary." 

"27  Stat.  449.  ^52. 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION  TO  1914  99 


The  Act  of  March  3,  1893  was  merely  an  administrr.tive 
measure  covering  the  inspection  and  deportation  of  aliens, 
made  necessary  by  the  extensions  of  jurisdiction  and  the 
list  of  excluded  classes  in  the  Act  of  1891.  It  did  not,  how- 
ever, add  to  the  excluded  classes. 

By  Section  1  the  masters  of  vessels  having  on  board  alien 
immigrants  are  required  to  deliver  on  arrival  to  the  in- 
spector of  immigration  ''lists  or  manifests  made  at  the  time 
and  place  of  embarkation  of  such  alien  immigrants  on 
board  such  steamer  or  vessel,  which  shall,  in  answer  to 
questions  at  the  top  of  said  lists,  state  as  to  each  immigrant 
the  full  name,  age,  and  sex,  whether  married  or  single;  the 
calling  or  occupation;  whether  able  to  read  or  write;  the 
nationality;  the  last  residence;  the  seaport  for  landing  in 
the  United  States;  the  final  destination,  if  any,  beyond 
the  seaport  of  landing;  whether  having  a  ticket  through  to 
such  final  destination;  whether  the  immigrant  has  paid 
his  own  passage  or  whether  it  has  been  paid  by  other 
persons  or  by  any  corporation,  society,  municipality,  or 
government;  whether  in  possession  of  money,  and  if  so, 
whether  upwards  of  thirty  dollars  and  how  much  if  thirty 
dollars  or  less;  whether  going  to  join  a  relative,  and  if  so, 
what  relative  and  his  name  and  address;  whether  ever  be- 
fore in  the  United  States,  and  if  so,  when  and  where; 
whether  ever  in  prison  or  almshouse  or  supported  by  char- 
ity; whether  a  polygamist;  whether  under  contract,  ex- 
press or  implied,  to  perform  labor  in  the  United  States; 
and  what  is  the  immigrant's  condition  of  health  mentally 
and  physically,  and  whether  deformed  or  crippled,  and  if 
so,  from  what  cause."  It  is  obvious  that  this  greatly  en- 
larged the  detailed  information  to  be  included  in  the 
manifests. 

By  Section  2,  no  one  list  or  manifest  shall  group  more 
than  thirty  names;  each  immigrant  or  head  of  family  must 
be  ticketed  for  identification;  and  each  list  or  manifest 
must  be  verified  in  a  prescribed  manner,  the  master  of  the 
vessel  having  to  certify  that  he  and  the  ship's  surgeon  have 

»*27  Stat.  569. 


100  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


made  an  examination  of  all  the  immigrants  before  sail- 
ing, and  believe  none  of  them  to  belong  to  the  excluded 
classes. 

Section  3  requires  each  list  or  manifest  to  be  certified 
in  like  manner,  under  oath  or  affirmation,  before  the  de- 
parture of  the  vessel,  by  the  vessel's  surgeon,  or,  if  none, 
by  some  competent  surgeon  employed  by  the  owners  of  the 
vessel.  Section  4  imposes  on  the  master  of  the  vessel  a 
fine  of  ten  dollars  for  each  immigrant  qualified  to  enter 
the  United  States  who  is  not  duly  listed,  or  manifested,  be- 
sides excluding  such  immigrants  and  requiring  them  to  be 
''returned  like  other  excluded  persons." 

By  Section  5  the  inspector  is  required  to  ''detain  for 
a  special  inquiry,"  under  Section  1  of  the  Act  of  March 
3,  1891,  "every  person  who  may  not  appear  to  him  to  be 
clearly  and  beyond  doubt  entitled  to  admission."  Special 
inquiries  are  conducted  by  not  less  than  four  inspectors, 
the  concurrence  of  at  least  three  of  whom  is  necessary  to 
a  favorable  decision;  and  such  a  decision  may  be  appealed 
by  any  dissenting  inspector  to  the  superintendent  of  im- 
migration, whose  action  is  subject  to  review  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury. 

Section  6  relates  to  medical  examinations  and  by  Section 
7  no  bond  or  guaranty  that  an  alien  immigrant  shall  not 
become  a  public  charge  can  be  received  except  under  specific 
authority  of  the  superintendent  of  immigration,  with  the 
written  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  This 
provision  was  to  discourage  the  giving  of  bonds,  as  these 
were  found  to  be  practically  useless,  owing  to  the  expense, 
delay,  and  difficulty  involved  in  attempting  to  bring  suit 
upon  them. 

Section  8  requires  all  steamship  or  transportation  com- 
panies and  other  owners  of  vessels,  regularly  engaged  in 
transporting  alien  immigrants  to  the  United  States  to  keep 
conspicuously  exposed  to  view  in  the  office  of  each  of  their 
agents  in  foreign  countries  authorized  to  sell  emigrant  tick- 
ets, a  copy  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States  relative  to  immi- 
gration, printed  in  large  letters  in  the  language  of  the  coun- 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION  TO  1914  101 


try  where  the  copy  of  the  law  is  to  be  exposed  to  view  and 
their  agents  are  required  to  call  the  attention  thereto  of  per- 
sons contemplating  emigration  before  selling  tickets  to  them. 

Section  9  provided  for  the  sale  of  certain  privileges  at 
Ellis  Island  and  Section  10  provided  that  the  act  shall  not 
apply  to  Chinese  persons,  and  that  the  act  should  go  into 
effect  sixty  days  after  its  passage. 

The  sundry  civil  appropriations  act  of  August  18,  1894 
had  several  provisions  relative  to  immigration  as  follows: 
^'In  every  case  where  an  alien  is  excluded  from  admission 
into  the  United  States  under  any  law  or  treaty  now  exist- 
ing or  hereafter  made,  the  decision  of  the  appropriate 
immigration  or  custom's  officers,  if  adverse  to  the  admis- 
sion of  such  alien,  shall  be  final,  unless  reversed  on  appeal 
to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury."  'The  head  money 
from  alien  passengers  on  and  after  the  first  day  of  October 
next,  collected  under  the  Act  of  August  3,  1882,  to  regulate 
immigration  shall  be  one  dollar  in  lieu  of  the  fifty  cents  as 
provided  in  said  act." 

'The  commissioners  of  immigration  at  the  several  ports 
shall  be  appointed  by  the  President,  by  and  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  Senate,  to  hold  their  office  for  a  term 
of  four  years,  unless  sooner  removed,  and  until  their  suc- 
cessors are  appointed." 

The  appointment  of  commissioners  for  the  several  ports, 
the  increase  of  the  head  tax  to  $1.00  and  the  provision  con- 
cerning repeal  were  all  steps  in  the  right  direction  toward 
better  enforcement  of  the  laws.  The  last  provision  was 
an  attempt  to  get  rid  of  the  interference  of  the  Courts  in 
immigration  matters.  Formerly  habeas  corpus  proceedings 
were  frequently  resorted  to  with  the  result  that  the 
efficiency  of  executive  action  was  much  impaired.  The 
result  of  this  new  provision  was  that  ''the  right  to  deter- 
mine whether  an  alien  was  an  immigrant  was  taken  from 
the  courts  entirely;  and  the  immigration  acts  were  made 
applicable  to  aliens  who,  having  acquired  a  domicile  here 
and  then  gone  abroad,  attempted  to  re-enter  the  coun- 

=^28  Stat.  390, 


102 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


try.-*^  Unless,  therefore,  the  United  States  admits  that  the 
immigrant  is  a  citizen,  the  decision  of  the  immigration  offi- 
cers as  to  that  fact  and  as  to  their  jurisdiction  is  final.^"^  As 
this  act  applies,  moreover,  only  when  the  decision  is  adverse 
to  the  right  of  the  alien  to  land,  if  the  decision  be  favor- 
able, the  Federal  authorities  can  still  question  his  right, 
as  for  example  under  the  Chinese  Exclusion  Acts.^^" 

By  the  Act  of  March  2,  1895,^^  making  appropriations 
for  the  legislative,  executive  and  judicial  expenses  of  the 
Government,  the  title  of  the  Superintendent  of  Immigra- 
tion was  made  Commissioner-General  of  Immigration ;  and 
by  the  Act  of  June  6,  1900,^^  he  was  also  charged  with  the 
administration  of  the  Chinese  exclusion  laws. 

In  his  annual  message  of  December  3,  1901,  President 
Roosevelt  stated:  ''Our  present  immigration  laws  are  unsat- 
isfactory. There  should  be  a  comprehensive  law  enacted 
with  the  object  of  working  a  three-fold  improvement  over 
our  present  system.  First,  we  should  aim  to  exclude  abso- 
lutely not  only  all  persons  who  are  known  to  be  believers  in 
anarchistic  principles  or  members  of  anarchistic  societies, 
but  also  all  persons  who  are  of  a  low  moral  tendency  or  of 
unsavory  reputation.  This  means  that  we  should  require 
a  more  thorough  system  of  inspection  abroad  and  a  more 
rigid  system  of  examination  at  our  immigration  ports,  the 
former  being  especially  necessary. 

''The  second  object  of  a  proper  immigration  law  ought 
to  be  to  secure  by  a  careful  and  not  merely  perfunctory 
educational  test  some  intelligent  capacity  to  appreciate 
American  institutions  and  act  sanely  as  American  citizens. 
This  would  not  ke.ep  out  all  anarchists,  for  many  of  them 
belong  to  the  intelligent  criminal  class.    But  it  would  do 

^Lem  Moon  Sing  v.  United  States,  158  U.  S.  538  (1895). 

^United  States  v.  Ju  Toy,  198  U.  S.  253  (1905),  overruling  Re  Tom  Yum, 
64  Fed.  Rep.  485  (1894).  This  would  seem  to  be  a  somewhat  extreme 
statement  of  the  principle  envolved  in  the  Ju  Toy  case.  See  cases  cited 
on  p.  97,  note  22,  and  on  p.  140,  note  14. 

=*Li  Sing  V.  United  States,  180  U.  S.  490  (1901). 

^Hall,  Immigration,  p.  216. 
28  Stat.  780. 

"31  Stat.  611. 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION  TO  1914  103 


what  is  also  in  point — that  is,  tend  to  decrease  the  sum  of 
ignorance,  so  potent  in  producing  the  envy,  suspicion, 
mahgnant  passion,  and  hatred  of  order  out  of  which  anar- 
chistic sentiment  inevitably  springs.  Finally,  all  persons 
should  be  excluded  who  are  below  a  certain  standard  of 
economic  fitness  to  enter  our  industrial  field  as  competitors 
with  American  labor.  There  should  be  proper  proof  of  per- 
sonal capacity  to  earn  an  American  living  and  enough 
money  to  insure  a  decent  start  under  American  conditions. 
This  would  stop  the  influx  of  cheap  labor,  and  the  resulting 
competition  which  gives  rise  to  so  much  of  bitterness  in 
American  industrial  life,  and  it  would  dry  up  the  springs 
of  the  pestilential  social  conditions  in  our  great  cities,  where 
anarchistic  organizations  have  their  greatest  possibility  of 
growth. 

''Both  the  educational  and  economic  tests  in  a  wise  immi- 
gration law  should  be  designed  to  protect  and  elevate  the 
general  body  politic  and  social.  A  very  close  supervision 
should  be  exercised  over  the  steamship  companies  which 
mainly  bring  over  the  immigrants,  and  they  should  be  held 
to  a  strict  accountability  for  any  infraction  of  the  law." 

This  message  but  voiced  the  agitation  for  further  restric- 
tion of  immigration  which  had  been  growing  stronger  and 
louder  during  the  ten  years  after  the  passage  of  the  Act  of 
1893.  Rills  adding  i11iterfl,tpg  tr>  fhp  pvplnrlpH  plo^gpg  pgggprl 
one  or  the_other  house  of  Congress  seven  times  in  this, 
period,  and  when  in  1896  such  an  act  passed  both  houses 
at  the  same  time,  it  met  with  a  veto  by  President  Cleve- 
land. However,  it  was  felt  by  most  persons  familiar  with 
the  subject  that  the  Act  of  1893  left  many  loopholes  for 
the  admission  of  undesirables,  and  that,  pending  radical 
action  by  Congress,  the  machinery  of  exclusion  needed  re- 
pairing and  strengthening.  Some  of  these  defects  were 
enumerated  in  the  report  of  an  Immigration  Investigating 
Commission  in  1895,  while  other  amendments  were  sug- 
gested by  witnesses  testifying  before  the  Industrial  Com- 
mission in  1901.  A  general  meeting  of  the  commissioners 
of  the  various  ports  was  held  in  1902  to  obtain  an  expres- 


104  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


sion  of  opinion  as  to  the  changes  most  needed.  The  final 
outcome  of  it  all  was  the  Act  of  March  3,  1903,^^  **an  act 
to  regulate  the  immigration  of  aliens  into  the  United 
States." 

Section  1  provided  that  'Hhere  shall  be  levied,  collected,  i 
and  paid  a  duty  of  two  dollars  for  each  and  every  passenger  j 
not  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  y 
the  Republic  of  Cuba,  or  the  Republic  of  Mexico,  who  shall 
come  by  steam,  sail,  or  other  vessel  from  any  foreign  port 
to  any  port  within  the  United  States,  or  by  any  railway 
or  any  other  mode  of  transportation,  from  foreign  con- 
tiguous territory  to  the  United  States.  .  .  .  The  money 
thus  collected  shall  constitute  a  permanent  appropriation- 
to  be  called  the  'immigrant  fund,'  "  to  be  used  for  purposes 
connected  with  the  immigration  of  aliens.  ! 

Section  2  provided  that  the  following  classes  of  aliens 
shall  be  excluded  from  admission  into  the  United  States: 
(1)  all  idiots;  (2)  epileptics;  (3)  insane  persons,  persons 
who  have  been  insane  within  five  years  previous,  and  per- 
sons who  have  had  two  or  more  attacks  of  insanity  at  any 
time  previously;  (4)  paupers,  persons  likely  to  become  a 
public  charge,  and  professional  beggars;  (5)  persons  af- 
flicted with  a  loathsome  or  with  a  dangerous  contagious 
disease;  (6)  persons  who  have  been  convicted  of  a  felony 
or  other  crime  or  misdemeanor  involving  moral  turpitude; 
(7)  polygamists;  (8)  anarchists,  or  persons  who  believe  in 
or  advocate  the  overthrow  by  force  or  violence  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  or  of  all  government  or  of 
all  forms  of  law,  or  the  assassination  of  public  officials;  (9) 
prostitutes,  and  persons  who  procure  or  attempt  to  bring 
in  prostitutes  or  women  for  the  purpose  of  prostitution; 
(10)  those  who  have  been,  within  one  year  from  the  date 
of  the  application  for  admission  to  the  United  States,  de- 
ported as  being  under  offers,  solicitations,  promises  or  agree- 
ments to  perform  labor  or  service  of  some  kind  therein; 
and  also,  (11)  any  person  whose  ticket  or  passage  is  paid 
for  with  the  money  of  another,  or  who  is  assisted  by  others 

"32  Stat.,  part  I,  p.  1213. 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION  TO  1914  105 


lal  to  come,  unless  it  is  affirmatively  and  satisfactorily  shown 
ct  that  such  person  does  not  belong  to  one  of  the  foregoing 
excluded  classes.  It  was  provided,  however,  that  ''this 
section  shall  not  be  held  to  prevent  persons  living  in  the 
United  States  from  sending  for  a  relative  or  friend  who  is 
not  of  the  foregoing  excluded  classes :  Provided,  That  noth- 
ing in  this  act  shall  exclude  persons  convicted  of  an  offense 
purely  political,  not  involving  moral  turpitude:  And  pro- 
vided further.  That  the  provisions  of  this  law  applicable  to 
contract  labor  shall  not  be  held  to  exclude  professional 
actors,  artists,  lecturers,  singers,  ministers  of  any  religious 
denomination,  professors  for  colleges  and  seminaries,  per- 
;  sons  belonging  to  any  recognized  learned  profession,  or  per- 
sons employed  strictly  as  personal  or  domestic  servants." 

By  Section  3,  ''the  importation  into  the  United  States 
of  any  woman  or  girl  for  the  purposes  of  prostitution  is 
hereby  forbidden;  and  whoever  shall  import  or  attempt  to 
import  any  woman  or  girl  into  the  United  States  for  the 
!  purposes  of  prostitution,  or  shall  hold  or  attempt  to  hold, 
I  any  woman  or  girl  for  such  purposes  in  pursuance  of  such 
i  illegal  importation  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  felony,  and, 
on  conviction  thereof,  shall  be  imprisoned  not  less  than 
one  nor  more  than  five  years  and  pay  a  fine  not  exceeding 
five  thousand  dollars." 

Section  4  made  it  unlawful  "to  prepay  the  transportation 
or  in  any  way  to  assist  or  encourage  the  importation  or 
migration  of  any  alien  into  the  United  States,  in  pursuance 
of  any  offer,  solicitation,  promise,  or  agreement,  parole  or 
special,  expressed  or  implied,  made  previous  to  the  impor- 
tation of  such  alien  to  perform  labor  or  service  of  any  kind, 
skilled  or  unskilled,  in  the  United  States." 

By  Section  5  any  violation  of  Section  4  is  subject  to  a 
penalty  of  $1,000,  while  by  Section  6  it  is  likewise  punish- 
able "to  assist  or  encourage  the  importation  or  migration 

"  Through  an  oversight  in  drafting  this  act,  which  was  intended  to  be  a 
complete  codification  of  the  then  existing  law,  no  mention  was  made  of 
contract  laborers  among  the  excluded  classes,  but  it  was  held  that  they  were 
still  excluded  under  the  previous  Acts  of  1885  and  1888,  a  construction  justi- 
fied by  the  provisions  in  regard  to  contract  laborers  in  this  act. 


106  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 

of  any  alien  by  promise  of  employment  through  advertise 
ments  printed  and  published  in  any  foreign  country;"  bu 
this  does  not  apply  to  State  or  Territorial  advertising  of 
inducements  to  immigrants.  Section  7  substantially  re- 
enacts  Section  4  of  the  Act  of  March  3,  1891.  ' 

By  Section  8  the  bringing  into  or  landing  in  the  United  ] 
States,  or  the  attempt  to  do  so,  by  vessel  or  otherwise,  either 
personally  or  through  an  agent,  of  an  alien  not  duly  ad- 
mitted by  an  immigrant  inspector,  or  not  lawfully  entitled 
to  enter  the  United  States,  is  a  misdemeanor,  subject  to  a. 
fine  not  exceeding  $1,000  for  each  such  act  or  attempt,  or 
imprisonment  for  not  less  than  three  months  nor  more 
than  two  years,  or  to  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment. 

Sections  9,  10,  and  11  relate  to  the  exclusion  of  diseased 
persons  and  to  medical  inspections.  Section  9  provides  that 
the  bringing  in  of  any  person  afflicted  with  a  loathsome  or 
a  dangerous  contagious  disease  by  any  person  or  company, 
except  railway  lines,  is  forbidden.  A  fine  of  $100  is  attached 
for  each  and  every  violation  if  it  appears  that  the  disease 
might  have  been  detected  at  the  time  of  embarkation. 
Section  11  is  to  the  effect  that  if  a  rejected  alien  is  helpless 
from  sickness,  physical  disability,  or  infancy,  and  is  accom- 
panied by  an  alien  whose  protection  is  required,  both  shall 
be  returned  in  the  usual  way. 

Section  12  substantially  repeats  Section  1  of  the  Act  of 
March  3,  1893,  except  that  the  list  or  manifest  must  show, 
in  addition  to  the  other  things,  the  alien's  ''race;"  whether 
he  has  fifty  (instead  of  thirty)  dollars;  whether  he  is  going 
to  join  a  relative  "or  friend,"  and  if  so,  what  relative  or 
friend  and  his  name  and  complete  address ;  whether  he  was  ; 
ever  in  prison  or  almshouse  ''or  an  institution  or  hospital 
for  the  care  and  treatment  of  the  insane;"  whether  he  is  an 
"anarchist;"  and  whether  he  is  "coming  by  reason  of  any 
offer,  solicitation,  promise,  or  agreement,  expressed  or  im- 
plied," to  perform  labor,  and,  if  deformed  or  crippled,  "for 
how  long,"  as  well  as  from  what  cause. 

Section  13  substantially  repeats  Section  2  of  the  Act  of  ; 
March  3,  1893,  while  Section  14  does  likewise  for  Section  3  I 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION  TO  1914  107 

)f  the  same  act.  Section  15  imposes,  for  the  failure  of 
the  master  or  commanding  officer  of  a  vessel  to  deliver 
lists  or  manifests  as  required,  a  fine  of  $10  ''for  each  alien 
concerning  whom  the  above  information  is  not  contained  in 
any  list  as  aforesaid."  Sections  16  and  17  relate  to  the 
process  of  inspection  and  examination  of  immigrants. 

By  Section  18  any  owner,  officer,  agent  or  person  in 
charge  of  a  vessel  who  lands  or  permits  to  land  an  alien  at 
any  time  or  place  other  than  that  designated  by  the  immi- 
gration officers  is  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  punishable 
3y  a  fine  of  not  less  than  $100  nor  more  than  $1,000  for  each 
alien,  or  by  imprisonment  not  exceeding  a  year,  or  both, 
and  every  alien  so  landed  is  to  be  deported. 

Section  19  substantially  repeats  Section  10  of  the  Act  of 
March  3,  1891,  with  certain  regulatory  additions.  By  Sec- 
tion 20  ''any  alien  who  shall  come  into  the  United  States 
in  violation  of  law  or  who  shall  be  found  a  public  charge 
therein,  from  causes  existing  prior  to  landing,  shall  be  de- 
ported as  hereinafter  provided  to  the  country  whence  he 
came  at  any  time  within  two  years  after  his  arrival  at  the 
expense,  including  one-half  of  the  cost  of  inland  transporta- 
tion to  the  port  of  deportation,  of  the  person  bringing  such 
alien  into  the  United  States,  or  if  that  cannot  be  done,  then 
at  the  expense  of  the  immigrant  fund  referred  to  in  Section 
1  of  this  act." 

Section  21  contained  a  similar  provision  for  deportation 
of  all  aliens,  with  the  exception  of  public  charges,  found  in 
the  LTnited  States,  in  violation  of  this  act  within  the  period 
of  three  years  after  landing  or  entry  therein. 

By  Sections  22  and  23  the  Commissioner-General  of 
Immigration  administers  the  immigration  laws,  under  the 
direction  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

By  Section  24  the  appointment  of  immigration  inspectors 
and  other  employees  is  put  under  the  Civil  Service  rules. 
This  section  also  provides  that  the  decision  of  an  immigra- 
tion officer,  if  favorable  to  the  alien,  may  be  challenged  by 
any  other  immigration  officer,  and  in  that  case  the  alien  is 
taken  before  a  board  of  special  inquiry.    So.  also  is  every 


108  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION  ; 

alien  who  may  not  appear  to  the  inspector  to  be  "clearly  f 
and  beyond  a  doubt"  entitled  to  land.  vi 

Section  25  provides  for  a  board  of  special  inquiry  at  thei  ? 
various  ports  of  arrival,  to  consist  of  three  members,  such  tli 
boards  to  "have  authority  to  determine  whether  an  alien 
who  has  been  duly  held  shall  be  allowed  to  land  or  be  de-  ) 
ported.''  Their  hearings  are  "separate  and  apart  from  ii' 
the  public,"  but  they  keep  records  of  their  proceedings  and  'i^ 
of  testimony,  "and  the  decision  of  any  two  members  of  a  i  ^ 
board  shall  prevail  and  be  final,"  subject  to  an  appeal  by  \\\ 
the  alien  or  by  a  dissenting  member  to  the  Secretary  of  >  < 
the  Treasury,  "whose  decision  shall  then  be  final."  j ' 

Section  26  is  similar  to  Section  7  of  the  Act  of  March  3,  '; 
1893,  while  Sections  27-32  contain  regulatory  clauses,  some  , 
of  which  were  embraced  in  previous  acts. 

By  Section  33  the  words  "United  States"  mean,  for  the 
purpose  of  the  act,  "the  United  States  and  any  waters,  ter-  i 
ritoiy,  or  other  place  now  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  there- 
of."  By  Section  36  the  laws  relating  to  the  immigration  or  j 
exclusion  of  Chinese  remain  unaffected. 

Section  37  states  that  if  a  person  who  had  taken  up  his  i 
permanent  residence  in  the  United  States,  and  has  declared  i 
his  intention  to  become  a  citizen,  sends  for  his  wife  or  I 
minor  children,  and  the  wife  or  any  of  the  children  is  in-  ' 
fected  with  a  contagious  disorder,  such  wife  or  child,  if  ! 
the  disease  was  contracted  on  the  ship,  must  be  held  till  it 
shall  be  "determined  whether  the  disorder  will  be  easily 
curable,  or  whether  they  can  be  permitted  to  land  without 
danger  to  other  persons,"  and  meanwhile  they  are  not  to  1 
be  deported. 

Finally,  by  Section  39,  anarchists,  etc.,  are  not  to  be  nat- 
uralized, and  are  subject  to  fine  and  imprisonment  for 
violation  of  this  provision. 

The  outstanding  provisions  in  this  act  were  (1)  the  in- 
crease in  the  number  of  excluded  classes;  (2)  the  special 
attention  and  penalties  with  respect  to  prostitutes;  (3) 
the  enlargement  of  the  criminal  offenses  against  the  immi- 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION  TO  1914  109 


gration  acts;  (4)  the  detention  and  return  of  aliens  here  in 
violation  of  the  law;  and  (5)  the  better  inspection  of  immi- 
grants. Concerning  the  manifests  it  is  worth  while  to  state 
that  the  information  in  them  was  and  still  is  given  chiefly 
from  answers  by  the  immigrants  to  the  ship's  officers. 
Many  of  the  questions  seem  absurd,  for,  of  course,  no  one 
is  likely  to  admit  that  he  belongs  to  any  of  the  excluded 
classes.  Frequently  tlie  immigrants  are  thoroughly  coached 
as  to  what  answers  to  give  to  questions  before  leaving  the 
port  of  embarkation,  and  in  other  cases  they  are  coached 
during  the  voyage.  On  inspection,  therefore,  the  answers 
do  not  agree  in  many  instances  with  the  information  on  the 
manifest.  In  respect  to  the  amount  of  money  the  change 
may  be  a  truthful  one,  the  immigrant  having  spent  or 
gambled  it  away  while  on  the  voyage. 

By  the  act  of  February  14,  IDOS,^"*  to  establish  the  De- 
partment of  Commerce  and  Labor,  the  Commissioner- 
General  of  Immigration,  the  commissioners  of  immigration, 
the  bureau  of  immigration,  and  the  immigration  service  at 
large  are  transferred  to  that  department,  and  are  placed 
under  its  jurisdiction  and  supervision. 

The  Act  of  March  22,  1904  extended  the  exemption 
from  the  head  tax  of  two  dollars  to  citizens  of  Newfound- 
land entering  the  United  States.  The  Act  of  April  28, 
1904  ^^  provided  that  the  words  ''Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury," wherever  used  in  the  Act  of  March  3,  1903,  or  in 
amendments  thereto,  or  in  prior  acts  in  relation  to  alien 
immigration,  be  stricken  out,  and  the  words,  ''Secretary  of 
Commerce  and  Labor"  inserted  in  lieu  thereof.  In  relation 
to  the  enforcement  of  the  immigration  laws  in  the  Philip- 
pines, the  Act  of  February  6,  1905  stated:  "That  the 
immigration  laws  of  the  United  States  in  force  in  the  Phil- 
ippine Islands  shall  be  administered  by  the  officers  of  the 
general  government  thereof  designated  by  an  appropriate 
legislation  of  said  government,  and  all  moneys  collected 


"32  Stat.  828-829. 

'"SS  Stat.,  part  I,  p.  144. 


^33  Stat.,  part  I,  p.  591. 
"  33  Stat.,  part  I,  p.  692. 


110  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


under  said  laws  as  duty  or  head  tax  on  alien  immigrants 
coming  into  said  islands  shall  not  be  covered  into  the  gen- 
eral fund  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  but  shall 
be  paid  into  the  treasury  of  said  islands  to  be  used  and 
expended  for  the  government  and  benefit  of  said  islands." 

The  Act  of  February  3,  1905  'Trovided,  That  the  Com- 
missioner-General of  Immigration,  with  the  approval  of 
the  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  shall  have  power  to 
refund  head  tax  heretofore  and  hereafter  collected  under 
section  one  of  the  immigration  Act  approved  March  3,  1903, 
upon  presentation  of  evidence  showing  conclusively  that 
such  collection  was  erroneously  made."  While  by  the  Act 
of  March  4,  1911,^^  these  refunds  are  authorized  to  be  made 
only  ''upon  presentation  of  evidence  showing  conclusively 
that  collection  was  made  through  error  of  Government 
officers." 

Due  to  the  demand  for  further  regulation  and  restriction 
of  alien  immigration  a  number  of  bills  were  introduced  into 
both  houses  of  Congress,  which  finally  resulted  in  the 
passage  of  the  Act  of  February  20,  1907.^^ 

By  Section  1  the  head  tax  is  raised  to  $4.00  for  every 
alien  entering  the  United  States  except  ''that  the  said  tax 
shall  not  be  levied  upon  aliens  who  shall  enter  the  United 
States  after  an  uninterrupted  residence  of  at  least  one  year, 
immediately  preceding  such  entrance,  in  the  Dominion  of 
Canada,  Newfoundland,  the  Republic  of  Cuba,  or  the  Re- 
public of  Mexico,  nor  upon  otherwise  admissible  residents 
of  any  possession  of  the  United  States,  nor  upon  aliens  in 
transit  through  the  United  States,  nor  upon  aliens  who 
have  been  lawfully  admitted  to  the  United  States  and  who 
later  shall  go  in  transit  from  one  part  of  the  United  States 
to  another  through  foreign  contiguous  territory."  The  tax 
was  not  to  be  levied  on  aliens  arriving  in  Guam,  Porto 
Rico,  or  Hawaii  unless  they  came  to  the  United  States 
without  having  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 
Power  was  given  to  the  President,  when  he  "shall  be  satis- 
fied that  passports  issued  by  any  foreign  government  to  its 

33  Stat.,  part  I,  p.  684.      ^  36  Stat.  1363,  1442.       ^  34  Stat.,  p.  898. 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION  TO  1914  111 


citizens  to  go  to  any  country  other  than  the  United  States 
or  to  any  insular  possession  of  the  United  States  or  to  the 
Canal  Zone  are  being  used  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the 
holders  to  come  to  the  continental  territory  of  the  United 
States  to  the  detriment  of  labor  conditions  therein,"  to  re- 
fuse to  permit  such  citizens  of  the  country  issuing  such 
passports  to  enter  the  United  States. 

By  Section  2  the  excluded  classes  were  extended  to  in- 
clude imbeciles;  feeble-minded  persons;  persons  afflicted 
with  tuberculosis;  persons  not  comprehended  within  any 
of  the  foregoing  excluded  classes  who  are  found  to  be  men- 
tally or  physically  defective,  such  mental  or  physical  defect 
being  of  a  nature  which  may  affect  the  ability  of  the  alien 
to  earn  a  living;  persons  who  admit  having  committed 
a  felony  or  other  crime  or  misdemeanor  involving  moral 
turpitude;  persons  who  admit  their  belief  in  the  practice 
of  polygamy;  women  or  girls  coming  into  the  United  States 
for  the  purpose  of  prostitution  or  for  any  other  immoral 
purpose;  persons  who  procure  or  attempt  to  bring  in  pros- 
titutes or  women  or  girls  for  the  purpose  of  prostitution  or 
for  any  other  immoral  purpose;  any  person  whose  ticket 
or  passage  is  paid  for  with  the  money  of  another,  or  who 
is  assisted  by  others  to  come,  unless  it  is  affirmatively  and 
satisfactorily  shown  that  said  ticket  or  passage  was  not 
paid  for  by  any  corporation,  association,  society,  munici- 
pality, or  foreign  government,  either  directly  or  indirectly, 
except  that  this  shall  not  apply  to  the  tickets  or  passage 
of  aliens  in  immediate  and  continuous  transit  through  the 
United  States  to  foreign  contiguous  territory;  and  all  chil- 
dren under  sixteen  years  of  age,  unaccompanied  by  one  or 
both  of  their  parents,  at  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary  of 
Commerce  and  Labor  or  under  such  regulations  as  he  may 
from  time  to  time  prescribe. 

Section  3  stated  that  'Vhoever  shall  keep,  maintain,  con- 
trol, support  or  harbor  in  any  house  or  other  place,  for  the 
purpose  of  prostitution,  or  for  any  other  immoral  purpose, 
any  alien  woman  or  girl,  within  three  years  after  she  shall 
have  entered  the  United  States,  shall,  in  every  such  case, 


112 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


be  deemed  guilty  of  a  felony,  and  on  conviction  thereof  be 
imprisoned  not  more  than  five  years  and  pay  a  fine  of  not 
more  than  five  thousand  dollars;  and  any  alien  woman  or 
girl  who  shaU  be  found  an  inmate  of  a  house  of  prostitution 
or  practicing  prostitution,  at  any  time  within  three  years 
after  she  shall  have  entered  the  United  States,  shall  be 
deemed  to  be  unlawfully  within  the  United  States  and  shall 
be  deported/^ 

Sections  4-9  substantially  repeated  provisions  in  the  act 
of  1903. 

By  Section  9  a  fine  of  $100  is  imposed  on  any  person 
bringing  in  aliens  excluded  for  certain  physical  disabilities, 
if  these  existed  and  might  have  been  detected  previous  to 
embarkation. 

Section  12  added  to  the  contents  of  the  manifests  for 
aliens  coming  into  the  United  States.  It  also  provided 
''that  it  shall  further  be  the  duty  of  the  master  or  com- 
manding officer  of  every  vessel  taking  alien  passengers  out 
of  the  United  States,  from  any  port  thereof,  to  file  before 
departure  therefrom  with  the  collector  of  customs  of  such 
port  a  complete  list  of  all  such  alien  passengers  taken  on 
board.  Such  list  shall  contain  the  name,  age,  sex,  nation- 
ality, residence  in  the  United  States,  occupation,  and  the 
time  of  last  arrival  of  every  such  alien  in  the  United 
States.'^ 

The  next  change  of  any  importance  in  this  act  occurs  in 
Sections  20  and  21,  which  provide  that  all  deportations  may 
be  within  three  years.  Section  25  gives  either  the  alien 
or  any  dissenting  member  of  a  board  of  special  inquiry  the 
right  to  appeal  through  the  commissioner  of  immigration 
at  the  port  of  arrival  and  the  Commissioner-General  of 
Immigration  to  the  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  ex- 
cept in  the  cases  of  tuberculosis,  loathsome  or  dangerous 
contagious  disease,  or  mental  or  physical  disability,  as  pre- 
viously provided  for,  in  which  case  the  decision  of  the 
board  is  final. 

Section  26  provides  that  "any  alien  liable  to  be  excluded 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION  TO  1914  113 


because  likely  to  become  a  public  charge  or  because  of 
physical  disabihty  other  than  tuberculosis,  or  a  loathsome 
or  dangerous  contagious  disease,  may  if  otherwise  admis- 
sible, nevertheless  be  admitted  in  the  discretion  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  Commerce  and  Labor  upon  the  giving  of  a  suitable 
and  proper  bond"  against  becoming  a  public  charge,  the 
amount  and  conditions  to  be  prescribed  by  the  said  Secre- 
tary. 

Section  39  created  a  joint  commission  on  immigration  to 
consist  of  three  Senators,  three  Representatives  and  three 
persons  appointed  by  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
which  commission  was  to  study  the  immigration  problem 
in  all  of  its  phases  and  report  on  the  same.  Authority  was 
also  given  to  the  President  to  call  an  international  confer- 
ence if  he  deemed  it  advisable. 

Section  40  provided  for  the  establishment  of  a  Division 
of  Information  in  the  Bureau  of  Immigration  and  Naturali- 
zation, whose  duty  shall  be  ''to  promote  a  beneficial  dis- 
tribution of  aliens  admitted  into  the  United  States  among 
the  several  States  desiring  immigration." 

Section  42  dealt  with  accommodations  on  ships  for  immi- 
grant passengers.  The  last  provisions  on  the  subject  had 
been  in  the  Act  of  1882.  However,  the  provisions  in  section 
42  of  the  Act  of  1907  were  not  adequate  nor  did  they  corre- 
spond to  the  facts,  hence  another  law  was  passed,  December 
19,  1908,  which  made  our  steerage  provisions  correspond 
with  the  British  law  on  the  subject,  which  was  superior  to 
ours  in  every  way. 

We  have  noted  in  the  above  act  only  those  provisions 
which  made  changes  of  any  importance.  We  find  ( 1 )  a  fur- 
ther extension  of  the  excluded  classes;  (2)  more  stringent 
provisions  designed  to  better  control  the  evil  of  prostitu- 
tion; (3)  an  extension  to  other  classes  of  the  fine  for  bring- 
ing in  inadmissible  aliens;  (4)  the  beginning  of  permanent 
statistics  of  departing  aliens;  (5)  no  appeal  permitted  from 
the  decision  of  a  board  of  special  inquiry  in  case  of  mental 
or  physical  disability;  (6)  the  creation  of  the  Joint  Immi- 


114  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


gration  Commission;  and  (7)  the  creation  of  the  Division 
of  Information. 

The  Sundry  Civil  Appropriation  Act  of  March  4,  1909 
repealed  the  law  establishing  the  immigrant  fund,  while 
another  act  ''relating  to  outward  alien  manifests  on  vessels 
bound  to  Canada  or  Mexico/'  also  approved  March  4, 
1909/-  provided  that  until  the  provisions  of  Section  12  of 
the  Act  of  February  20,  1907,  "relating  to  outward  alien 
manifests,  shall  be  made  applicable  to  passengers  going  out 
of  the  United  States  to  Canada  by  land  carriage,  said  pro- 
visions shall  not  apply  to  passengers  going  by  vessels  em- 
ployed exclusively  in  the  trade  between  the  ports  of  the 
United  States  and  the  Dominion  of  Canada  and  the  Re- 
public of  Mexico.'^ 

The  next  important  addition  to  our  immigration  legisla- 
tion was  the  Act  of  March  26,  1910.^^  It  extended  the 
excluded  classes,  among  which  additions  was  the  provision 
to  keep  out  ''persons  who  are  supported  by  or  receive  in 
whole  or  in  part  the  proceeds  of  prostitution."  The  three 
year  limit  for  deportation  was  removed  as  regards  sexually 
immoral  aliens  by  the  provision  that  "any  alien  who  shall 
be  found  an  inmate  of  or  connected  with  the  management 
of  a  house  of  prostitution  or  practicing  prostitution  after 
such  alien  shall  have  entered  the  United  States,  or  who  shall 
receive,  share  in,  or  derive  benefit  from  any  part  of  the 
earnings  of  any  prostitute;  or  who  is  employed  by,  in,  or 
in  connection  with  any  house  of  prostitution  or  music  or 
dance  hall  or  other  place  of  amusement  or  resort  habitually 
frequented  by  prostitutes,  or  where  prostitutes  gather,  or 
who  in  any  way  assists,  protects,  or  promises  to  protect 
from  arrest  any  prostitute,  shall  be  deemed  to  be  unlaw- 
fully within  the  United  States  and  shall  be  deported."  It 
also  provided  for  punishment  for  attempts  to  return  after 
deportation,  and  for  deportation  after  the  expiration  of 
sentence  for  violations  of  this  section  of  the  act.  The  White 
Slave  Traffic  Act     is  closely  connected  with  this  phase  of 


^^35  Stat.  969. 
^35  Stat.  1060. 


"36  Stat.,  p.  263. 

*"Junc  25,  1910;  36  Stat.  825. 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION  TO  1914  115 


the  immigration  statutes  and  undertakes  to  lessen  the 
eviL 

By  the  Act  of  August  24,  1912  it  was  ^Trovided,  That 
all  charges  for  maintenance  or  return  of  Chinese  persons 
applying  for  admission  to  the  United  States  shall  hereafter 
be  paid  or  reimbursed  to  the  United  States  by  the  person, 
company,  partnership,  or  corporation  bringing  such  Chi- 
nese to  a  port  of  the  United  States  as  applicants  for  ad- 
mission." 

By  the  Act  of  March  4,  1913,^^  creating  the  Department 
of  Labor,  all  the  business  of  immigration  and  naturaliza- 
tion was  given  to  the  newly  created  department,  so  that 
now  the  Commissioner-General,  the  commissioners  of  immi- 
gration, the  Bureau  of  Immigration,  etc.,  are  subject  to  the 
Secretary  of  Labor. 

Throughout  the  development  of  this  body  of  laws  well- 
marked  tendencies  can  be  traced.  In  the  first  place,  the 
criteria  of  admission  have  steadily  increased  in  severity, 
until  in  1914  the  law  provided  for  the  exclusion  of  vir- 
tually every  undesirable  class,  with  the  probable  exception 
of  illiterates.^'^  In  the  second  place,  there  is  an  increasing 
concentration  of  all  business  connected  with  immigration 
in  the  hands  of  a  single  branch  of  the  Federal  Government. 
Third,  we  find  an  increasing  determination  on  the  part  of 
the  United  States  to  assert  its  right  to  protect  itself  against 
unwelcome  additions  to  its  population,  not  only  by  refusing 
them  admission,  but  by  expelling  them  from  the  country 
when  we  deem  it  expedient  for  our  own  welfare.  It  is  evi- 
dent from  the  laws  themselves  that  bar  after  bar  was  put 
up  as  time  went  on.  Not  once  have  we  found  a  provision 
which  let  down  a  single  bar  once  it  had  been  put  up. 
Although  the  early  efforts  were  largely  futile,  the  laws  brief 
and  the  machinery  inadequate,  yet  progress  was  rapid,  so 
that  by  1914  we  were  in  a  position  to  make  further,  more 
drastic  and  more  effective  restrictions  than  ever  before. 

**37  Stat.  475.  *'37  Stat.  736. 

*'  On  March  2,  1897,  President  Cleveland  vetoed  a  bill  which  would  have 
excluded  illiterates.  On  February  14,  1913,  President  Taft  vetoed  a  similar 
bill.    See  injra,  pp.  130-132. 


116  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


While  the  World  War  delayed  the  necessity  for  such  legis- 
lation yet  it  was  soon  evident  that  it  had  also  crea+ed  a 
greater  necessity  than  ever  before  for  restrictions  more 
drastic  than  any  previously  dreamed  of. 


CHAPTER  V 


Federal  Immigration  Legislation,  1914-1921 

i  Recommendations  of  the  Immigration  Commission — Public  opinion  and 
I  the  Hteracy  test— The  Immigration  Act  of  1917— Act  of  December  26,  1920 
—The  Alien  Anarchist  Act  of  1918-1920— Act  of  May  10,  1920— Act  of 
June  5,  1920— Summary. 

I  In  the  ''Brief  Statement  of  the  Investigations  of  the  Im- 
migration Commission,  with  Conclusions  and  Recommen- 

I  dations,"  ^  we  find  some  interesting  facts  concerning  the 
operation  of  the  laws  then  existing,  together  with  recom- 
mendations for  future  legislation.  The  commission  stated: 
"The  present  emigration  from  Europe  to  the  United  States 
is  in  the  largest  measure  due  to  economic  causes.  .  .  . 
The  United  States  Government  makes  no  effort  to  induce 
immigration.  .  .  .  The  immediate  incentive  of  the  great 
bulk  of  present-day  immigration  is  the  letters  of  persons 
in  this  country  to  relatives  or  friends  at  home.  ...  A  large 
number  of  immigrants  are  induced  to  come  by  quasi  labor 
agents.  .  .  .  Another  important  agency  in  promoting  emi- 

i  gration  from  Europe  to  the  United  States  are  the  many 
thousands  of  steamship-ticket  agents  and  subagents  oper- 
ating in  the  emigrant-furnishing  districts  of  southern  and 
eastern  Europe.  .  .  .  While,  unfortunately,  the  present 
law,  from  the  difficulty  in  securing  proof,  is  largely  in- 
effectual in  preventing  the  coming  of  criminals  and  other 
moral  delinquents,  it  does  effectively  debar  paupers  and  the 
physically  unsound  and  generally  the  mentally  unsound. 
...  It  is  highly  desirable  both  for  humanitarian  and  medi- 
cal reasons  that  aliens  who  are  not  admissible  to  the  United 
States  should  be  turned  back  at  foreign  ports  of  embarka- 

*  Reports  of  the  U.  S.  Immigration  Commission,  I,  25-49  (1911). 

117 


118  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


tion,  or  better  still,  that  they  should  not  leave  their  homes  | 
for  such  ports  only  to  be  returned.  .  .  .  No  adequate  means ; 
have  been  adopted  for  preventing  the  immigration  of  crim- , 
inals,  prostitutes,  and  other  morally  undesirable  aliens.  In 
spite  of  the  stringent  law,  criminals  or  moral  defectives  of 
any  class,  provided  they  pass  the  medical  inspection,  can 
usually  embark  at  European  ports  and  enter  the  United 
States  without  much  danger  of  detection.  .  .  .  The  coming  i 
of  criminals  and  persons  of  criminal  tendencies  constitutes ' 
one  of  the  serious  social  effects  of  the  immigration  move-  i 
ment.    The  present  immigration  law  is  not  adequate  to  ' 
prevent  the  immigration  of  criminals,  nor  is  it  sufficiently  ' 
effective  as  regards  the  deportation  of  alien  criminals  who  ' 
are  in  this  country.  .  .  .  The  best  place  to  bar  alien  crim-  i 
inals  is  in  their  own  countries,  and  the  best  way  is  through 
the  utilization  of  the  police  records  of  such  countries.  .  .  .  i 
The  immigration  of  the  mentally  defective  aliens  is  reason-  ' 
ably  well  controlled  under  the  existing  immigration  law.  If  ' 
is  entirely  possible,  however,  that  persons  may  exhibit  no  ' 
evidence  of  insanity  and  yet  that  they  may  become  insane  : 
within  a  short  time  after  their  admission.    Until  some  i 
means  can  be  devised  of  informing  the  immigration  author-  ' 
ities  as  to  the  previous  mental  history  of  arriving  aliens,  ' 
the  present  safeguards  are  practically  all  that  can  be  af-  j 
forded.  .  .  .  There  are  probably  at  the  present  time  rela-  ! 
tively  few  actual  contract  laborers  admitted.    There  are 
annually  admitted,  however,  a  very  large  number  who  come  ' 
in  response  to  indirect  assurance  that  employment  awaits 
them.   It  is  clear  that  there  is  a  large  induced  immigration 
due  to  labor  agents  in  this  country,  who,  independently  or  j 
in  cooperation  with  agents  in  Europe,  operate  practically 
without  restriction.    As  a  rule  only  unskilled  laborers  are 
induced  to  come  to  the  United  States  by  this  means.  .  .  .  ! 
Boards  of  special  inquiry  are  one  of  the  most,  if  not  the 
most,  important  factor  in  the  administration  of  the  immi- 
gration law.  ...  In  justice  to  the  immigrant,  and  to  the 
country  as  well,  the  character  of  these  boards  should  be  im- 
proved. They  should  be  composed  of  men  whose  ability  and 


IFEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION,  1914-1921  119 


i;raining  fit  them  for  the  judicial  functions  performed,  and 
i:he  provision  compelling  their  hearings  to  be  separate 
and  apart  from  the  public  should  be  repealed.  .  .  . 

As  a  result  of  the  investigation  the  Commission  is  unani- 
mously of  the  opinion  that  in  framing  legislation  emphasis 
should  be  laid  upon  the  following  principles: 

1.  Care  should  be  taken  that  immigration  be  such  both  ' 
in  quality  and  quantity  as  not  to  make  too  difiicult  the 
process  of  assimilation. 

2.  Further  general  legislation  concerning  the  admission 
of  aliens  should  be  based  primarily  upon  economic  or  busi- 
ness considerations  touching  the  prosperity  and  economic 
well-being  of  our  people. 

3.  The  measure  of  the  rational,  healthy  development  of 
a  country  is  not  the  extent  of  its  investment  of  capital, 
its  output  of  products,  or  its  exports  and  imports,  unless 
;here  is  a  corresponding  economic  opportunity  afforded  to 
the  citizen  dependent  upon  employment  for  his  material, 
mental,  and  moral  development. 

4.  The  development  of  business  may  be  brought  about 
by  means  which  lower  the  standard  of  living  of  the  wage 
earners.  A  slow  expansion  of  industry  which  would  permit 
the  adaptation  and  assimilation  of  the  incoming  labor  sup- 
ply is  preferable  to  a  very  rapid  industrial  expansion  which 
results  in  immigration  of  laborers  of  low  standards  and 
efiiciency,  who  imperil  the  American  standard  of  wages  and 
conditions  of  employment. 

The  Commission  agrees  that: 

1.  To  protect  the  United  States  more  effectively  against 
the  immigration  of  criminal  and  certain  other  debarred 
classes  .  .  . 

(a)  Aliens  convicted  of  serious  crimes  within  a  period  of 
five  years  after  admission  should  be  deported. 

(b)  Under  the  provisions  of  Section  39  of  the  immigra- 
tion act  of  February  20,  1907,  the  President  should  appoint 
commissioners  to  make  arrangements  with  such  countries  as 


120  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


have  adequate  police  records  to  supply  emigrants  with' 
copies  of  such  records,  and  that  thereafter  immigrants  from 
such  countries  should  be  admitted  to  the  United  States  only . 
upon  the  production  of  proper  certificates  showing  an  ab-i 
sence  of  convictions  for  excludable  crimes. 

(c)  So  far  as  practicable  the  immigration  laws  should 
be  so  amended  as  to  be  applicable  to  alien  seamen. 

(d)  Any  alien  who  becomes  a  public  charge  within  three ! 
years  after  his  arrival  in  this  country  should  be  subject  to 
deportation  in  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary  of  Commerce  \ 
and  Labor. 

2.  Sufficient  appropriation  shoulcf  be  regularly  made  to 
enforce  vigorously  the  provisions  of  the  laws  regarding  the 
importation  of  women  for  immoral  purposes. 

3.  As  the  new  statute  relative  to  steerage  conditions  took 
effect  so  recently  as  January  1,  1909,  .  .  .  the  Commis- 
sion's only  recommendation  in  this  connection  is  that  a 
statute  be  immediately  enacted  providing  for  the  placing 
of  Government  officials  ...  on  vessels  carrying  third-class 
or  steerage  passengers  for  the  enforcement  of  the  law  and 
the  protection  of  the  immigrant. 

4.  To  strengthen  the  certainty  of  just  and  humane 
decisions  of  doubtful  cases  at  ports  of  entry  it  is  recom- 
mended—  That  section  25  of  the  immigration  act  of 
1907  be  amended  to  provide  that  boards  of  special  inquiry 
should  be  appointed  by  the  Secretary  of  Commerce  and 
Labor,  and  that  they  should  be  composed  of  men  whose 
ability  and  training  qualify  them  for  the  performance  of 
judicial  functions;  that  the  provisions  compelling  their 
hearings  to  be  separate  and  apart  from  the  public  should 
be  repealed,  and  that  the  office  of  an  additional  Assistant 
Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor  to  assist  in  reviewing 
such  appeals  be  created. 

5.  To  protect  the  immigrant  against  exploitation;  to 
discourage  sending  savings  abroad;  to  encourage  perma- 

y  nent  residence  and  naturalization ;  and  to  secure  better  dis- 
tribution of  alien  immigrants  throughout  the  country  .  .  . 


IFEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION,  1914-1921  121 

(a)  The  States  should  enact  laws  strictly  regulating 
immigrant  banks. 

(b)  Proper  State  legislation  should  be  enacted  for  the 
regulation  of  employment  agencies. 

(c)  Aliens  who  attempt  to  persuade  immigrants  not  to 
become  American  citizens  should  be  made  subject  to  de- 
portation. 

(d)  The  division  of  information  should  be  so  conducted 
as  to  cooperate  with  States  desiring  immigrant  settlers; 
and  information  concerning  the  opportunities  for  settle- 
ment should  be  brought  to  the  attention  of  immigrants  in 
industrial  centers  who  have  been  here  for  some  time  and 
who  might  be  thus  induced  to  invest  their  savings  in  this 
country  and  become  permanent  agricultural  settlers. 

6.  One  of  the  provisions  of  Section  2  of  the  act  of  1907 
reads  as  follows:  'And  provided  further,  That  skilled  labor 
may  be  imported  if  labor  of  like  kind  unemployed  cannot 
be  found  in  this  country.'  .  .  .  Under  the  law  the  Secretary 
of  Commerce  and  Labor  has  no  authority  to  determine  the 
question  of  the  necessity  of  importing  such  labor  in  advance 
of  the  importation,  and  it  is  recommended  that  an  amend- 
ment to  the  law  be  adopted  by  adding  to  the  clause  cited 
above  a  provision  to  the  effect  that  the  question  of  the 
necessity  of  importing  such  skilled  labor  in  any  particular 
instance  may  be  determined  by  the  Secretary  of  Commerce 
and  Labor  upon  the  application  of  any  person  interested 
prior  to  any  action  in  that  direction  by  such  person;  such 
determination  by  the  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor  to 
be  reached  after  a  full  hearing  and  an  investigation  into  the 
facts  of  the  case. 

8.  The  investigations  of  the  Commission  show  an  over 
supply  of  unskilled  labor  in  basic  industries  to  an  extent 
which  indicates  an  over  supply  of  unskilled  labor  in  the 
industries  of  the  country  as  a  whole,  and  therefore  demand 
legislation  which  will  at  the  present  time  restrict  the  fur- 
ther admission  of  such  unskilled  labor.  It  is  desirable  in 
making  the  restriction  that  .  .  . 


122 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


(a)  A  sufficient  number  be  debarred  to  produce  i 
marked  effect  upon  the  present  supply  of  unskilled  labor. 

(b)  As  far  as  possible  the  aliens  excluded  should  be  those 
who  come  to  this  country  with  no  intention  to  become 
American  citizens  or  even  to  maintain  a  permanent  resi- 
dence here,  but  merely  to  save  enough,  by  the  adoption,  if 
necessary,  of  low  standards  of  living,  to  return  permanently 
to  their  home  country.  Such  persons  are  usually  men  unac- 
companied by  wives  or  children. 

(c)  As  far  as  possible  the  aliens  excluded  should  also  be 
those  who,  by  reason  of  their  personal  qualities  or  habits, 
would  least  readily  be  assimilated  or  would  make  the  least 
desirable  citizens. 

The  following  methods  of  restricting  immigration  have 
been  suggested : 


f  (aj)  The  exclusion  of  those  unable  to  read  or  write  in 
some  language. 

(b)  The  limitation  of  the  number  of  each  race  arriving 
each  year  to  a  certain  percentage  of  the  average  of  that 
race  arriving  during  a  given  period  of  years. 

(c)  The  exclusion  of  unskilled  laborers  unaccompanied 
by  wives  or  families. 

(d)  The  limitation  of  the  number  of  immigrants  arriv- 
ing annually  at  any  port. 

(e)  The  material  increase  in  the  amount  of  money  re- 
quired to  be  in  the  possession  of  the  immigrant  at  the  port 
of  arrival. 

(f)  The  material  increase  of  the  head  tax. 

(g)  The  levy  of  the  head  tax  so  as  to  make  a  marked 
discrimination  in  favor  of  men  with  families. 

All  these  methods  would  be  effective  in  one  way  or  an- 
other in  securing  restrictions  in  a  greater  or  less  degree. 
"A  majority  of  the  Commission  favor  the  reading  and  writ- 
ing test  as  the  most  feasible  single  method  of  restricting 
undesirable  immigration." 

These  recommendations  have  been  considered  at  such 
length  due  to  the  fact  that  until  the  Commission  made  its 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION,  1914-1921  123 

report  all  discussions  on  the  subject  of  immigration  were, 
of  necessity,  based  very  largely  upon  conjecture  or  the 
personal  observation  of  individuals,  and,  far  too  often, 
upon  prejudice.  But  in  this  report  we  have  a  fair  analysis 
of  the  situation.  The  results  of  the  work  of  the  Commis- 
sion are  evident  in  the  legislation  passed  since  1914. 

The  Dillingham-Burnett  bill,^  which  was  based  upon  the 
report  of  the  Immigration  Commission,  passed  both  houses 
^of  Congress  by  overwhelming  majorities,  but  was  vetoed  by 
President  Taft  because  it  contained  the  reading  or  literacy 
test.  The  Senate  promptly  passed  the  bill  over  the  Presi- 
dent's veto  by  a  vote  of  72  to  18,  but  the  vote  in  the  House, 
213  to  114,  lacked  by  five  votes  the  two-thirds  necessary 
to  override  the  executive's  disapproval.  The  bill  was  rein- 
troduced in  the  following  Congress  in  substantially  the 
same  form  as  before  and  passed  the  House  by  252  to  126, 
and  the  Senate  by  50  to  7,  but  President  Wilson  vetoed  it 
and  the  House  failed  to  overcome  the  veto  by  a  narrow 
margin  of  four  votes  less  than  the  required  two-thirds, 
which  action  ended  consideration  of  the  matter,  for  the 
House  having  acted,  the  veto  message  did  not  come  before 
the  Senate. 

President  Wilson  vetoed  this  measure  because  it  con- 
tained the  literacy  test,  which  seemed  to  him  to  be  a  radi- 
cal departure  from  the  ''traditional"  policy  of  this  country. 
The  only  question  in  his  mind  was  that  he  was  not  sure 
that  the  American  people  wanted  to  restrict  immigration 
''by  arbitrary  tests,"  and  he  suggested  that  the  party  plat- 
forms speak  out  on  the  subject. 

Yet,  since  1896  there  had  been  sixteen  recorded  votes  on 
bills  embodying  the  literacy  test  in  one  form  or  another  in 
either  the  House  or  the  Senate  and  each  time  the  measure 
passed  by  more  than  a  majority.^    Three  times  both  the 

^  Both  Senator  Dillingham  and  Representative  Burnett  were  members  of 
the  Immigration  Commission. 

'In  an  address  in  the  Senate,  March  16,  1896,  Senator  Lodge  advocated 
a  literacy  test  to  restrict  immigration.  Congressional  Record,  54th  Con- 
gress, 1st  session,  pp.  2817-20.  For  a  history  of  the  literacy  test,  see  H.  P. 
Fairchild,  Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics,  XXXI,  p.  447.  — 


124  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


Senate  and  the  House  together  passed  bills  containing  the-i 
provision,  which  thereby  put  it  before  the  President  for  his 
signature  or  veto  and  in  each  case  it  was  a  veto.*  Out  of 
the  213  members  of  the  House  who  voted  in  1913  to  pass 
the  bill  over  President  Taft's  veto  more  than  160  were 
re-elected.  Out  of  the  252  members  of  the  House  who 
voted  in  1914  for  the  literacy  test  185  were  returned.  The 
former  was  a  Republican  Congress  and  the  latter  a  Demo- 
cratic one. 

It  would  seem  that  these  activities  of  Congress  simply  re- 
flected a  powerful  opinion  in  favor  of  further  restriction  of 
immigration.    The  platforms  of  the  political  parties  had, 
already  spoken  on  the  subject.    In  1896  the  Republican 
Party  indorsed  the  literacy  test  in  direct  and  specific  terms, 
p without  equivocation  or  evasion  when  it  stated:    'Tor  the 
j  protection  of  the  quality  of  our  American  citizenship  and  of 
I  the  wages  of  our  working-men  against  the  fatal  competition 
/  of  low-priced  labor  we  demand  that  the  immigration  laws 
/  be  thoroughly  enforced  and  so  extended  as  to  exclude  from 
I   entrance  to  the  United  States  those  who  can  neither  read 
I    nor  write."    The  Democratic  Party  platform  of  that  year 
stated :  ^'We  hold  that  the  most  efficient  way  of  protecting 
^American  labor  is  to  prevent  the  importation  of  foreign 
^    pauper  labor  to  compete  with  it  in  the  home  market."  In 
\     1912  the  Republican  platform  declared:   ''We  pledge  the 
\     Republican  Party  to  the  enactment  of  appropriate  laws 
\    to  give  relief  from  the  constantly  growing  evil  of  induced 
]    or  undesirable  immigration  which  is  inimical  to  the  prog- 
^  ress  and  welfare  of  the  people  of  the  United  States." 

Undaunted  by  two  defeats,  Mr.  Burnett  again  presented 
the  bill  at  the  next  session  of  Congress.  Both  Houses  of 
Congress  again  passed  it  by  large  majorities,  and  President 
Wilson  again  vetoed  the  measure.  However,  the.  executive 
opposition  could  no  longer  hold  in  check  the  demand  for 
further  restriction,  so  the  veto  was  overcome  by  a  vote  of 

*For  President  Cleveland's  veto  see  U.  S.  54th  Congress,  2nd  Session, 
Senate  Doc.  No.  185.  For  President  Taft's  veto  see  U.  S.  62nd  Congress, 
3d  Session,  Senate  Doc.  No.  1087.  For  President  Wilson's  first  veto  see 
U.  S.  63d  Congress,  3d  Session,  House  Doc.  No.  1527. 


FEDFRAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION,  1914-1921  125 

287  to  106,  or  25  more  than  the  required  two-thirds,  in 
the  House,  and  by  a  vote  of  62  to  19  in  the  Senate. 

The  Immigration  Act  of  February  5,  1917,  which  is  still 
part  of  our  basic  law  on  immigration,  repeals  the  act  of 
February  20,  1907,  the  Act  of  March  3,  1903,  and  all  prior 
acts  or  parts  of  acts  inconsistent  with  the  new  law. 

By  Section  1  ''the  word  'alien'  wherever  used  in  this  act 
shall  include  any  person  not  a  native-born  or  naturalized 
citizen  of  the  United  States;  but  this  definition  shall  not 
be  held  to  include  Indians  of  the  United  States  not  taxed 
or  citizens  of  the  islands  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  ^ 
States.  .  .  .  That  the  term  'seamen'  as  used  in  this  act 
shall  include  every  person  signed  on  the  ship's  articles  and 
employed  in  any  capacity  on  board  any  vessel  arriving 
in  the  United  States  from  any  foreign  port  or  place." 

Section  2  states  "That  there  shall  be  levied,  collected,  and 
paid  a  tax  of  $8  for  every  alien,  including  alien  seamen 
regularly  admitted  as  provided  in  this  act,  entering  the 
United  States:  Provided,  That  children  under  sixteen 
years  of  age  who  accompany  their  father  or  their  mother 
shall  not  be  subject  to  said  tax."  In  the  Act  of  1907  the 
tax  was  $4  on  every  alien  without  reference  to  age.  In 
making  this  change  in  the  law  Congress  adopted  the  sug-> 
gestion  of  the  Immigration  Commission  to  adjust  the  head 
tax  so  as  to  make  a  marked  discrimination  in  favor  of  men 
with  families.  The  other  provisions  in  this  section  which 
relate  to  exemptions,  payment,  etc.,  are  substantially  the 
same  as  those  in  the  Act  of  1907.^ 

Section  3  enlarges  the  excluded  classes  to  include  "persons 
of  constitutional  psychopathic  inferiority;  persons  with 
chronic  alcoholism;  vagrants;  persons  who  have  come  in 
consequence  of  advertisements  for  laborers  printed,  pub- 
lished, or  (distributed  in  ^  foreign  country;  contract  labor- 
ers,  .  .  .  whether  such  offers  or  promises  are  true  or 
false  .  .  .  ;  (and)  stowaways,  except  that  any  such  stow- 
away, if  otherwise  admissible,  may  be  admitted  in  the  dis- 

'In  this  discussion  we  shall  note  only  the  changes  made  by  the  Act  of 
1917. 


126  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


cretion  of  ihe  Secretary  of  Labor."  The  provision  concern- 
ing the  exclusion  of  anarchists  was  elaborated  as  follows: 
''anarchists,  or  persons  who  believe  in  or  advocate  the  over- 
throw by  force  or  violence  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  or  of  all  forms  of  law,  or  who  disbelieve  in  or  are 
opposed  to  organized  government,  or  who  advocate  the 
assassination  of  public  officials,  or  who  advocate  or  teach 
the  unlawful  destruction  of  property;  persons  who  are 
members  of  or  affiliated  with  any  organization  entertain- 
ing and  teaching  disbelief  in  or  opposition  to  organized 
government,  or  who  advocate  or  teach  the  duty,  necessity, 
or  propriety  of  the  unlawful  assaulting  or  killing  of  any 
officer  or  officers,  either  of  specific  individuals  or  of  officers 
generally,  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  or  of 
any  other  organized  government,  because  of  his  or  their 
official  character,  or  who  advocate  or  teach  the  unlawful 
destruction  of  property."  The  exclusion  of  ''persons  likely 
to  become  a  public  charge,"  was  shifted  from  its  position 
in  section  2  of  the  immigration  act  of  1907  to  a  new  position 
in  section  3  of  this  act  in  order  to  indicate  the  intention 
of  Congress  that  aliens  shall  be  excluded  upon  said  ground 
for  economic  as  well  as  other  reasons  and  with  a  view  to 
overcoming  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  Gegiow 
V.  Uhl.^  In  the  Act  of  1907  this  class  appeared  between 
paupers  and  professional  beggars  in  the  list  of  excluded 
classes.  Immigration  officials  had  begun  to  consider  cir- 
cumstances not  directly  connected  with  the  alien  in  deter- 
mining whether  he  was  likely  to  become  a  public  charge  if 
admitted.  Under  this  interpretation  persons  were  excluded 
because  poor  economic  conditions  existed  in  the  locality  to 
which  they  were  destined,  or  even  because  of  racial  feeling 
against  the  alien  in  question,  the  theory  being  that  if  aliens 
could  not  get  employment  there  they  would  necessarily 
become  public  charges. 

A  group  of  Russian  Ossetins,  a  Caucasus  Mountain 
people,  who  came  to  New  York,  destined  to  Portland,  Ore- 
gon, were  denied  admission  as  persons  likely  to  become  a 

*239  U.  S.  3  (1915). 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION,  1914-1921  127 

public  charge  due  chiefly  to  the  poor  industrial  conditions 
existing  in  Portland  at  that  time  which  would  surely  make 
it  impossible  for  them  to  find  employment  there.  The 
Supreme  Court  held,  however,  that  aliens  could  be  ex- 
cluded as  ''likely  to  become  a  public  charge"  only  ''on  the 
ground  of  permanent  personal  objections  accompanying 
them  irrespective  of  local  conditions."  The  court  held  that 
"persons  likely  to  become  a  pubhc  charge"  were  to  be  con- 
sidered as  generally  similar  to  and  therefore  not  liable  to 
different  treatment  than  that  accorded  beggars,  paupers, 
idiots,  etc.,  since  they  were  mentioned  with  such  classes. 
The  court  held  that  the  Statute  "deals  with  admission 
to  the  United  States,  not  to  Portland."  It  was  to  over- 
come this  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  that  the  change 
in  the  position  of  this  clause  was  made,  although  Congress 
refused  to  adopt  the  statement,  "persons  likely  for  any 
reason  to  become  a  public  charge." 

Several  other  changes  were  also  made  in  the  phrase- 
ology of  the  old  law  respecting  excluded  classes.  The  Act 
of  1907  excluded  "insane  persons,  and  persons  who  have 
been  insane  within  five  years"  and  also  "persons  who  have 
had  two  or  more  attacks  of  insanity  at  any  time  previously," 
while  this  section  simply  reads  "insane  persons  (and)  per- 
sons who  have  had  one  or  more  attacks  of  insanity  at  any 
time  previously."  It  is  obvious  that  this  is  a  more  stringent 
provision  with  regard  to  the  admission  of  insane  persons,  or 
those  liable  to  become  insane,  than  the  former  provisions 
on  the  subject.  The  Act  of  1907  excluded  "polygamists 
or  persons  who  admit  their  belief  in  the  practice  of  polyg- 
amy," while  this  law  excludes  "polygamists  or  persons 
who  practice  polygamy  or  believe  in  or  advocate  the  prac- 
tice of  polygamy."  Again,  "persons  afflicted  with  tubercu- 
losis" in  the  former  act  is  made  to  read  "persons  afflicted 
with  tuberculosis  in  any  form,"  in  this  Act  of  1917.  The 
former  law  excluded  "women  and  girls  coming  into  the 
United  States  for  the  purpose  of  prostitution  or  for  any 

'See  Wallis  v.  U.  S.  ex  rel.  Mannara,  273  Fed.  Rep.  509  (1921)  for  a  more 
recent  definition  of  "persons  likely  to  become  a  public  charge." 


128  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


other  immoral  purpose,"  while  in  this  act  the  prohibition 
applies  to  all  ''persons,"  so  that  men  as  well  as  women  and 
girls  are  excluded. 

The  so  called  latitude  and  longitude  clause — which  is 
indeed  an  ''arbitrary"  test,  closed  the  door  against  virtually 
V  all  Asiatic  immigration  not  already  barred  by  the  Chinese 
Exclusion  Law  and  Treaty  and  the  "Gentlemen's  Agree- 
ment" with  Japan,  which  has  since  been  legislated  out  of 
existence  by  the  Act  of  1924.  This  clause  states:  "Unless 
otherwise  provided  for  by  existing  treaties,  persons  who  are 
natives  of  islands  not  possessed  by  the  United  States  adja- 
cent to  the  continent  of  Asia,  situate  south  of  the  twentieth 
parallel  latitude  north,  west  of  the  one  hundred  and  sixtieth 
meridian  of  longitude  east  from  Greenwich,  and  north  of 
the  tenth  parallel  of  latitude  south,  or  who  are  natives 
of  any  country,  province,  or  dependency  situated  on  the 
continent  of  Asia  west  of  the  one  hundred  and  tenth 
meridian  of  longitude  east  from  Greenwich  and  east  of 
the  fiftieth  meridian  of  longitude  east  from  Greenwich  and 
south  of  the  fiftieth  parallel  latitude  north,  except  that  por- 
tion of  said  territory  situate  between  the  fiftieth  and  the 
sixty-fourth  meridian  of  longitude  east  from  Greenwich 
and  the  twenty-fourth  and  thirty-eighth  parallels  of  lati- 
tude north,  and  no  alien  now  in  any  way  excluded  from,  or 
prevented  from  entering,  the  United  States  shall  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  United  States.  The  provision  next  fore- 
going, however,  shall  not  apply  to  persons  of  the  following 
status  or  occupations:  Government  officers,  ministers  or 
religious  teachers,  missionaries,  lawyers,  physicians,  chem- 
ists, civil  engineers,  teachers,  students,  authors,  artists, 
merchants,  and  travelers  for  curiosity  or  pleasure,  nor  to 
their  legal  wives  or  their  children  under  sixteen  years  of 
age  who  shall  accompany  them  or  who  subsequently  may 
apply  for  admission  to  the  United  States,  but  such  persons 
or  their  legal  wives  or  foreign-born  children  who  fail  to 
maintain  in  the  United  States  a  status  or  occupation  plac- 
ing them  within  the  excepted  classes  shall  be  deemed  to 
be  in  the  United  States  contrary  to  law,  and  shall  be  sub- 


130 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


ject  to  deportation  as  provided  in  section  nineteen  of  this  j 
act;' 

The  countries  included  within  this  restricted  area  are 
India,  Siam,  Indo-China,  Afghanistan,  parts  of  Russian  I 
Turkestan  and  Arabia  on  the  continent  of  Asia,  and  New 
Guinea,  Borneo,  Sumatra,  and  Java  as  well  as  many  lesser 
islands.  Chinese  are  excluded  by  the  Chinese  Exclusion 
Law,  while  the  Japanese  were  exempt  until  July  1,  1924 
under  the  ^^Gentlemen's  Agreement."  This  latitude  and 
longitude  plan  resulted  from  the  objections  of  the  Japanese 
Government  to  a  clause  excluding  persons  not  eligible  to. 
American  citizenship  through  naturalization.  Every  gen-- 
eral  immigration  bill  since  1911  included  such  a  clause,  but 
it  was  always  eliminated  prior  to  the  Act  of  1924.  The 
effect  of  this  latitude  and  longitude  clause  has  been  to 
cut  off  any  possible  immigration  of  east  Indians  or  Hindus 
to  our  Pacific  Coast,  a  result  made  all  the  more  possible 
by  Canada's  drastic  policy  of  exclusion  of  the  same  classes. 

However,  the  most  important  addition  to  the  excluded 
classes  w^as  the  one  which  had  caused  three  Presidential 
vetoes, — the  exclusion  of  all  who  can  not  read  under  a 
literacy  test.  The  law  stated:  'That  after  three  months 
from  the  passage  of  this  act,  in  addition  to  the  aliens  who 
are  by  law  now  excluded  from  admission  into  the  United 
States,  the  following  persons  shall  also  be  excluded  from  ad- 
-Mission  thereto,  to  wit : 

^  All  aliens  over  sixteen  years  of  age,  physically  capable 
of  reading,  who  can  not  read  the  English  language,  or  some 
other  language  or  dialect,  including  Hebrew  or  Yiddish: 
Provided,  That  any  admissible  alien,  or  any  alien  heretofore 
or  hereafter  legally  admitted,  or  any  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  may  bring  in  or  send  for  his  father  or  grandfather 
over  fifty-five  years  of  age,  his  wife,  his  mother,  his  grand- 
mother, or  his  unmarried  or  widowed  daughter,  if  other- 
wise admissible,  whether  such  relative  can  read  or  not;  and 
such  relative  shall  be  permitted  to  enter.  That  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  aliens  can  read  the  immi- 
grant inspectors  shall  be  furnished  with  slips  of  uniform 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION,  1914-1921  131 


size,  prepared  under  the  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  Labor, 
each  containing  not  less  than  thirty  nor  more  than  forty 
words  in  ordinary  use,  printed  in  plainly  legible  type  in 
some  one  of  the  various  languages  or  dialects  of  immigrants. 
Each  alien  may  designate  the  particular  language  or  dialect 
in  which  he  desires  the  examination  to  be  made,  and  shall 
be  required  to  read  the  words  printed  on  the  slip  in  such 
language  or  dialect.  That  the  following  classes  of  persons 
shall  be  exempt  from  the  operation  of  the  literacy  test,  to 
wit:  All  aliens  who  shall  prove  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
proper  immigration  officer  or  to  the  Secretary  of  Labor  that 
they  are  seeking  admission  to  the  United  States  to  avoid 
religious  persecution  in  the  country  of  their  last  permanent 
residence,  whether  such  persecution  be  evidenced  by  overt 
acts  or  by  laws  or  governmental  regulations  that  discrimi- 
nate against  the  alien  or  the  race  to  which  he  belongs  be- 
cause of  his  religious  faith;  all  aliens  who  have  been  law- 
fully admitted  to  the  United  States  and  who  have  resided 
therein  continuously  for  five  years  and  who  return  to  the 
United  States  within  six  months  from  the  date  of  their 
departure  therefrom;  all  aliens  in  transit  through  the 
United  States;  all  aliens  who  have  been  lawfully  admitted 
to  the  United  States  and  who  later  shall  go  in  transit  from 
one  part  of  the  United  States  to  another  through  foreign 
contiguous  territory." 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  this  test  is  so  simple  it  would 
seem  that  almost  anyone  can  fit  himself  to  meet  it  in  a 

^  short  time  if  he  so  desires.^  In  fact,  many  critics  consider 
the  test  a  big  joke.   Another  weakness  or  difficulty  with  it 

^  is  that  it  is  qualitative  and  fixed  no  numerical  limit  to  im- 
migration. In  1922,  there  were  admitted  234,623  immi- 
grants who  could  read  and  write;  1,476  who  could  read  but 
could  not  write;  and  10,743  who  could  neither  read  nor 
write,  while  only  1,249  were  debarred  under  the  literacy 

^  test,  384  of  whom  were  Mexicans.    In  1923  the  number 

'Such  books  as  MacLean,  Modern  Immigration,  and  Jenks  and  Lauck, 
The  Immigration  Problem,  discuss  the  relative  merits  of  a  literacy  test. 
See  especially,  Warne,  The  Tide  of  Immigration,  and  Fairchild,  The  Lit- 
eracy Test  and  Its  Making. 


132 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


admitted  who  could  read  and  write  was  419,189;  who  could 
read  but  could  not  write,  558;  and  who  could  neither  read 
nor  write,  11,356.  Those  debarred  numbered  2,095,  of 
whom  602  were  Mexicans,  672  Finns  and  118  (South) 
Italians.  It  is  obvious  from  these  figures  that  no  great 
numerical  restriction  has  been  brought  about  by  this  pro- 
vision.^ It  is  impossible  to  state  how  many  more  would 
come  but  for  this  restriction  who  never  leave  for  the  United 
States  knowing  they  cannot  gain  admission  due  to  their 
illiteracy.  In  1914  the  total  immigration  was  1,218,480, 
of  which  260,152  or  21.4  percent  were  illiterates  14  years  of 
age  and  over,  from  which  figures  it  would  seem  that  the 
law  does  keep  many  from  trying  to  gain  admittance.  How- 
ever, it  has  great  potential  value  today  against  at  least 
one  particular  country  against  which  it  would  seem  we 
need  further  restriction.  The  percentage  or  quota  law  does 
not  apply  to  Mexico.  The  result  is  that  many  Mexican 
laborers  are  entering  the  United  States  each  year  to  re- 
place the  supply  of  cheap  European  labor  which  has  been 
cut  off  by  the  quota  provisions,  some  of  whom  come  in  in 
violation  of  the  contract  labor  law,  a  practice  which  is 
difficult  to  stop.  However,  many  of  them  are  illiterate 
and  are  subject  to  exclusion  under  the  literacy  test.  If 
this  provision  were  properly  enforced  against  these  Mexi- 
can laborers  many  of  them  would  thus  be  excluded.  Here 
seems  to  be  the  most  important  work  today  to  be  done 
under  the  literacy  provision  and  this  gives  it  great  potential 
value. 

Sections  5-7  deal  with  contract  labor,  induced  immigra- 
tion and  solicitation  of  immigration  by  transportation  com- 
panies. The  former  law  against  the  importation  of  labor 
under  contract  is  amended  so  as  to  provide  for  the  exclusion 
of  laborers  coming  by  reason  of  false,  as  well  as  true, 
promise  of  employment.  The  exception  to  the  contract 
labor  law  that  skilled  labor  may  be  imported  ^^if  labor  of 
like  kind  unemployed  cannot  be  found  in  this  country" 

"See  Annual  Reports  of  the  Commissioner-General  of  Immigration  for 
such  annual  statistics. 


I 

FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION,  1914-1921  133 

was  amended  to  read  in  addition,  "and  the  question  of 
necessity  of  importing  such  skilled  labor  in  any  particular 
instance  may  be  determined  by  the  Secretary  of  Labor  upon 
!  the  application  of  any  person  interested,  such  application 
i  to  be  made  before  such  importation,  and  such  determina- 
tion by  the  Secretary  of  Labor  to  be  reached  after  a  full 
hearing  and  an  investigation  into  the  facts  of  the  case." 
^  Under  the  previous  law  the  necessity  could  not  be  deter- 
mined prior  to  the  arrival  of  the  imported  laborers  at  a 
United  States  port.    The  law  added  nurses  to  the  exempt 
i  professional  classes.    It  also  provided  that  violators  of 
^  the  law  concerning  contract  laborers,  induced  immigra- 
tion and  solicitation  of  immigration  by  steamship  com- 
j  panics,  etc.,  ''shall  be  subject  to  either  the  civil  or  the 
criminal  prosecution,  or  both,  prescribed  by  section  five  of 
this  act,"  which  made  violators  subject  to  a  fine  of  $1,000 
and  imprisonment  for  a  term  of  not  less  than  six  months 
nor  more  than  two  years.    Even  more  important  is  the 
authority  given  to  the  Secretary  of  Labor  to  impose  an 
administrative  fine  of  $400  "for  each  and  every  such  viola- 
tion," and  "whenever  it  shall  be  shown  to  the  satisfaction 
of  the  Secretary  of  Labor  that  the  provisions  of  this  sec- 
tion are  persistently  violated  by  or  on  behalf  of  any  trans- 
portation company,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  Secretary  to 
deny  to  such  company  the  privilege  of  landing  alien  immi- 
grant passengers  of  any  or  all  classes  at  United  States  ports 
for  such  a  period  as  in  his  judgment  may  be  necessary  to 
insure  an  observance  of  such  provisions"  against  the  stimu- 
lation of  immigration  by  such  transportation  companies. 

Section  11a  provided  for  the  placing  of  Government 
officials,  both  men  and  women,  on  board  ships  bringing 
immigrants  to  the  United  States,  the  purpose  stated  being 
the  enforcement  of  the  law  and  the  protection  of  the  im- 
migrants. The  law  stated:  "When  such  inspectors  and 
matrons  are  detailed  for  said  duty  they  shall  remain  in 
that  part  of  the  vessel  where  immigrant  passengers  are 
carried;  and  it  shall  be  their  duty  to  observe  such  pas- 
sengers during  the  voyage  and  report  to  the  immigration 


134  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


authorities  in  charge  at  the  port  of  landing  any  informa- 
tion of  value  in  determining  the  admissibility  of  such  pas- 
sengers that  may  have  become  known  to  them  during  the 
voyage."  This  provision  resulted  from  one  of  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  Immigration  Commission,  which  was 
prompted  by  the  findings  of  the  agents  of  the  Commission 
who  traveled  in  the  guise  of  immigrants  in  the  steerage  of  a 
number  of  trans-Atlantic  ships  and  both  observed  and 
experienced  the  hardships  and  indignities  to  which  immi- 
grants were  subjected  on  some  of  the  lines. 

Section  12  added  a  number  of  topics  to  the  manifests 
concerning  which  information  must  be  given  for  immigrants 
entering  and  departing  from  the  United  States  and  for 
citizens  of  the  United  States  "departing  who  do  not  in- 
tend to  reside  permanently  in  a  foreign  country.'^ 

Section  16  expands  the  details  concerning  the  physical 
and  mental  examination  of  all  arriving  aliens,  among  which 
provisions  we  find  that  "immigration  inspectors  are  hereby 
authorized  and  empowered  to  board  and  search  for  aliens 
any  vessel,  railway  car,  or  any  other  conveyance,  or  vehicle 
in  which  they  believe  aliens  are  being  brought  into  the 
United  States.".  .  .  "All  aliens  coming  to  the  United  States 
shall  be  required  to  state  under  oath  the  purposes  for  which 
they  come,  the  length  of  time  they  intend  to  remain  in  the 
United  States,  whether  or  not  they  intend  to  abide  in  the 
United  States  permanently  and  become  citizens  thereof, 
and  such  other  items  of  information  regarding  themselves 
as  will  aid  the  immigration  officials  in  determining  whether 
they  belong  to  any  of  the  excluded  classes  enumerated  in 
section  three  hereof." 

In  Section  17  it  was  provided  that  all  hearings  before 
the  boards  of  special  inquiry  shall  be  separate  and  apart 
from  the  public,  "but  the  immigrant  may  have  one  friend 
or  relative  present  under  such  regulations  as  may  be  pre- 
scribed by  the  Secretary  of  Labor." 

Section  19  makes  a  radical  change  in  the  policy  of  the 
government  concerning  the  deportation  of  aliens  on  account 
of  crimes  committed  after  landing  in  the  United  States. 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION,  1914-1921  135 


Previous  to  this  there  were  no  provisions  concerning  de- 
portation except  in  the  cases  of  prostitution  and  related 
offenses.  The  law  states:  'That  at  any  time  within  five 
years  after  entry,  any  alien  who  at  the  time  of  entry  was 
a  member  of  one  or  more  of  the  classes  excluded  by  law; 
any  alien  who  shall  have  entered  or  who  shall  be  found  in 
the  United  States  in  violation  of  this  Act,  or  in  violation 
of  any  other  law  of  the  United  States any  alien  who  at 
any  time  after  entry  shall  be  found  advocating  or  teaching 
the  unlawful  destruction  of  property,  or  advocating  or 
teaching  anarchy,  or  the  overthrow  by  force  or  violence 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  or  of  all  forms  of 
law  or  the  assassination  of  public  officials;  any  alien  who 
within  five  years  after  entry  becomes  a  public  charge  from 
causes  not  affirmatively  shown  to  have  arisen  subsequent 
to  landing;  except  as  hereinafter  provided,  any  alien  who  is 
hereafter  sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  a  term  of  one  year 
or  more  because  of  conviction  in  this  country  of  a  crime  in- 
volving moral  turpitude,  committed  within  five  years  after 
the  entry  of  the  alien  to  the  United  States,  or  who  is  here- 
after sentenced  more  than  once  to  such  a  term  of  imprison- 
ment because  of  conviction  in  this  country  of  any  crime 
involving  moral  turpitude, committed  at  any  time  after 
entry  .  .  .  shall,  upon  the  warrant  of  the  Secretary  of 
Labor,  be  taken  into  custody  and  deported:  Provided, 
That  the  marriage  to  an  American  citizen^^  of  a  female  of 
the  sexually  immoral  classes  the  exclusion  or  deportation 
of  which  is  prescribed  by  this  act  shall  not  invest  such 
female  with  United  States  citizenship  if  the  marriage  of 
such  alien  female  shall  be  solemnized  after  her  arrest  or 
after  the  commission  of  acts  which  make  her  liable  to  de- 
portation under  this  Act." 

''"The  latter  part  of  this  provision  relates  to  Chinese  entering  or  found 
in  the  United  States  in  violation  of  the  Chinese  Exclusion  Laws. 

"This  provision  has  proved  highly  unsatisfactory  due  to  its  vague 
meaning. 

^  This  provision  is  now  rendered  superfluous  by  the  Act  of  Sept.  22,  1922, 
since  the  foreign  woman  does  not  now  acquire  American  citizenship  ipso 
facto  by  marriage  to  an  American  citizen.  See  article  by  C.  D.  Hill,  "Citi- 
zenship of  Married  Women,"  Amer.  Jour,  oj  Intertiational  Law,  Vol.  18, 
pp.  720-736  (1924).    Also  see  infra,  pp.  176-177. 


136  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


Deportation  is  not  to  be  made  if  a  criminal  is  pardone( 
or  if  the  court  imposing  sentence  makes  a  recommendatioi 
that  deportation  shall  not  be  made.  The  proviso  quotec  i 
above  is  another  important  addition  to  the  law  respect 
ing  the  immoral  classes.  The  law  was  also  strengthenec 
against  such  classes  when  the  former  wording  'Vomen  an( 
girls  coming  into  the  United  States  for  the  purpose  oj 
prostitution,  etc./'  was  changed  to  ''persons." 

Sections  31-36  undertake  to  close  up  an  avenue  through 
which  many  aliens  were  illegally  entering  the  United  States. 
Section  31  provides  'That  any  person,  including  the  owner, 
agent,  consignee,  or  master  of  any  vessel  arriving  in  the 
United  States  from  any  foreign  port  or  place,  who  shall 
knowingly  sign  on  the  ship's  articles,  or  bring  to  the  United 
States  as  one  of  the  crew  of  such  vessel,  any  alien,  witli 
intent  to  permit  such  alien  to  land  in  the  United  States  in 
violation  of  the  laws  and  treaties  of  the  United  States  regu- 
lating the  immigration  of  aliens,  or  who  shall  falsely  and 
knowingly  represent  to  the  immigration  authorities  at  the 
port  of  arrival  that  any  such  alien  is  a  bona  fide  member  of 
the  crew,  shall  be  liable  to  a  penalty  not  exceeding  $5,000." 

Section  32  provides  that  "no  alien  excluded  from  admis- 
sion into  the  United  States.  .  .  .  and  employed  on  board 
any  vessel  arriving  in  the  United  States  from  any  foreign 
port  or  place,  shall  be  permitted  to  land  in  the  United 
States,  except  temporarily  for  medical  treatment  or  pur- 
suant to  regulations  prescribed  by  the  Secretary  of  Labor 
providing  for  the  ultimate  removal  or  deportation  of  such 
alien  from  the  United  States."  The  master,  owner,  agent 
or  consignee  is  subject  to  a  fine  of  $1,000  if  he  fails  to  detain 
any  such  alien  on  board. 

Section  33  declares  "That  it  shall  be  unlawful  and  be 
deemed  a  violation  of  the  preceding  section  to  pay  off  or 
discharge  any  alien  employed  on  board  any  vessel  arriving 
in  the  United  States  from  any  foreign  port  or  place,  unless 
duly  admitted  pursuant  to  the  laws  and  treaties  of  the 
United  States  regulating  the  immigration  of  aliens:  Pro- 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION,  1914-1921  137 


Oft  i^ided,  That  in  case  any  such  alien  intends  to  reship  on 
board  any  other  vessel  bound  to  any  foreign  port  or  place, 
he  shall  be  allowed  to  land  for  the  purpose  of  so  reshipping, 
lunder  such  regulations  as  the  Secretary  of  Labor  may  pre- 
scribe to  prevent  aliens  not  admissible  .  .  .  from  remaining 
jpermanently  in  the  United  States." 

I  Section  34  states  'That  any  alien  seaman  who  shall 
land  in  a  port  of  the  United  States  contrary  to  the  pro- 
visions of  this  act  shall  be  deemed  to  be  unlawfully  in  the 
'United  States,  and  shall,  at  any  time  within  three  years 
1  thereafter,  upon  the  warrant  of  the  Secretary  of  Labor  be 
taken  into  custody  and  brought  before  a  board  of  special 
inquiry  for  examination  as  to  his  qualifications  for  admis- 
I  sion  to  the  United  States,  and  if  not  admitted  said  alien  sea- 
man shall  be  deported." 

Sections  35  and  36  provide  further  restrictions  to  control 
the  problem  arising  from  the  illegal  entrance  of  aliens  as  v 
seamen.  The  latter  section  requires  a  list  containing 
among  other  information,  the  names  of  all  aliens  employed 
on  all  vessels  coming  into  and  departing  from  any  port  in 
the  United  States. 

The  Act  of  1917  makes  a  far  wider  use  of  the  administra- 
tive fine  than  the  former  laws.  It  also  increases  it  from 
I  $100  to  $200.  This  fine  or  penalty,  which  is  imposed  by  the 
I  Secretary  of  Labor  on  steamship  companies,  etc.,  is  a  very 
important  factor  in  preventing  such  companies  from  bring- 
ing excluded  persons  to  the  United  States.  This  act  also 
imposes  another  heavy  penalty  in  all  cases  which  are  sub- 
ject to  an  administrative  fine,  for  it  provides  that  in  addi- 
tion to  the  regular  penalty,  the  steamship  company  con- 
cerned shall  be  assessed  an  amount  equal  to  that  paid  by 
each  alien  of  the  classes  named  for  his  transportation  from 
the  initial  point  of  his  departure  for  the  United  States, 
which  amount  is  to  be  paid  to  the  debarred  alien  by  a 
United  States  official. 

Section  38  provided  that  the  Act  should  go  into  effect  on 
and  after  May  1,  1917,  except  the  literacy  test,  which  be- 


138 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


came  operative  on  May  5,  1917.    Such  then  are  the  im 
portant  additions  made  to  our  immigration  laws  by  th( 
Act  of  1917.    In  excluding  illiterates,  Asiatics  and  alien: ' 
r entering  illegally  as  seamen,  in  addition  to  the  exclusior 
]  of  other  new  classes,  together  with  strengthening  pro 
i  visions  for  the  exclusion  of  certain  classes  already  pro- 
hibited, the  law  was  made  more  stringent  than  ever  be- 
'  fore. 

An  act  of  December  26,  1920  which  provided  "for  the 
treatment  in  hospitals  of  diseased  alien  seamen,"  placed 
all  expenses  connected  therewith  upon  the  owner,  agent, 
consignee,  or  master  of  the  vessel  and  stated  that  such  ex- 
penses are  not  to  be  deducted  from  the  seaman's  wages. 

An  Act  approved  October  16,  1918  as  amended  by  the 
Act  approved  June  5,  1920,  which  was  "An  act  to  exclude 
and  expel  from  the  United  States  aliens  who  are  members 
of  the  anarchistic  and  similar  classes,"  provided:  "That  the 
following  aliens  shall  be  excluded  from  admission  into  the 
United  States: 

(a)  Aliens  who  are  anarchists;  ^ 

(b)  Aliens  who  advise,  advocate,  or  teach,  or  who  are 
members  of  or  affiliated  with  any  organization,  association, 
society  or  group,  that  advises,  advocates,  or  teaches,  oppo- 
sition to  all  organized  governments; 

(c)  Aliens  who  believe  in,  advise,  advocate,  or  teach, 
or  who  are  members  of,  or  affiliated  with  any  organization, 
association,  society,  or  group,  that  believes  in,  advises, 
advocates,  or  teaches:  (1)  the  overthrow  by  force  or 
violence  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  or  of 
all  forms  of  law,  or  (2)  the  duty,  necessity,  or  propriety 
of  the  unlawful  assaulting  or  killing  of  any  officer  or  officers, 
either  of  specific  individuals  or  of  officers  generally,  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  or  of  any  other  organized 
government,  because  of  his  or  their  official  character,  or 
(3)  the  unlawful  damage,  injury,  or  destruction  of  property, 
or  (4)  Sabotage  ;^^ 


"Soc  United  States  ex  rel.  Diamond  v.  Uhl,  266  Federal  Reporter  35 
(1920)  for  a  case  involving  the  advocacy  of  assassination  and  of  unlawful 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION,  1914-191: 1  139 


(d)  Aliens  who  write,  publish,  or  cause  to  be  written 
or  pubUshed,  or  who  knowingly  circulate,  distribute,  print, 
or  display,  or  knowingly  cause  to  be  circulated,  distributed, 
printed,  published,  or  displayed,  or  who  knowingly  have 
in  their  possession  for  the  purpose  of  circulation,  distribu- 
tion, publication,  or  display,  any  written  or  printed  matter, 
advising,  advocating,  or  teaching  opposition  to  all  organized 
government,  or  advising,  advocating,  or  teaching:  (1)  the 
joverthrow  by  force  or  violence  of  the  Government  of  the 
lUnited  States  or  of  all  forms  of  law,  or  (2)  the  duty,  neces- 
sity, or  propriety  of  the  unlawful  assaulting  or  killing  of  any 
officer  or  officers  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
or  of  any  other  organized  government,  or  (3)  the  unlawful 
damage,  injury,  or  destruction  of  property,  cr  (4)  Sabotage; 

(e)  Aliens  who  are  members  of  or  affiliated  with  any 
organization,  association,  society,  or  group,  that  writes, 
circulates,  distributes,  prints,  publishes,  or  displays,  or 
causes  to  be  written,  circulated,  distributed,  printed,  pub- 
lished, or  displayed,  or  that  has  in  its  possession  for  the 
I  purpose  of  circulation,  distribution,  publication,  issue,  or 
display,  any  written  or  printed  matter  of  the  character 
in  subdivision  (d). 

For  the  purpose  of  this  section:  (1)  the  giving,  loaning, 
or  promising  of  money  or  anything  of  value  to  be  used  for 
the  advising,  advocacy,  or  teaching  of  any  doctrine  above 
enumerated  shall  constitute  the  advising,  advocacy,  or 
teaching  of  such  doctrine;  and  (2)  the  giving,  loaning,  or 
promising  of  money  or  anything  of  value  to  any  organiza- 
I  tion,  association,  society,  or  group  of  the  character  above 
described  shall  constitute  affiliation  therewith." 
i     Section  2  provides  that  ''the  provisions  of  this  section 
I  shall  be  applicable  to  the  classes  of  aliens  mentioned  in  this 
act  irrespective  of  the  time  of  their  entry  into  the  United 
States,"  and  it  provides  for  the  deportation  of  such. 

Section  3  declared  it  to  be  a  felony  for  any  alien  to  enter 
or  attempt  to  enter  the  United  States  after  once  being 

destruction  of  property  during  a  strike.  The  court  affirmed  the  order  of 
deprr  nt'rn. 


140  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


excluded,  subject  to  imprisonment  for  not  more  than  five 
years  and  to  deportation  agam. 

The  details  of  this  law  have  been  given  in  full  for  a  two-  ^ 
fold  purpose:  first,  the  law  goes  about  as  far  as  it  is  possible 
^  to  go  in  providing  for  the  exclusion  of  radical  aliens.  Under 
it,  our  country  could  be  purged  of  every  such  alien  if 
the  law  were  properly  enforced;  and  second,  to  indicate 
clearly  that  there  is  a  law  for  such  deportations.  Just  after 
the  passage  of  this  act,  many  protests  were  voiced  against 
the  deportations  then  being  made.^^ 

A  joint  resolution  authorizing  the  readmission  to  the 
\  United  States  of  certain  aliens  who  had  been  conscripted 
or  had  volunteered  for  service  with  the  military  forces  of 
the  United  States  or  cobelligerent  forces  was  approved 
October  19,  1918.  Its  provision  permitting  the  readmis- 
sion of  these  aliens,  who  would  otherwise  be  excluded,  ''if 
it  is  proved  that  the  disability  was  acquired  while  the  alien 
was  serving  in  the  military  or  naval  forces  of  the  United  Ijl 
States  or  of  any  one  of  the  nations  cobelligerent  of  the 
United  States,"  was  proper  and  was  designed  to  prevent  , 
obvious  injustice  to  such  persons.^^  /  |j 

The  Act  of  May  10,  1920  provides  further  for  the  de-i| 
portation  of  certain  undesirable  aliens  and  denies  readmis-. 
sion  to  those  deported,  who  violate  certain  acts  of  the! 
United  States  which  are  designated  in  this  act.    The  Act 
of  June  5,  1920  providing  for  the  admission  of  certain  female  | 
aliens  stated :  "That  an  alien  who  cannot  read  may,  if  other-  I 
wise  admissible,  be  admitted  if,  within  five  years  after  this  ' 
act  becomes  law,  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  who  has 
served  in  the  military  or  naval  forces  of  the  United  States 
during  the  war  with  the  Imperial  German  Government,  j 

"As  to  what  constitutes  a  "fair  hearing"  see  Whitfield,  Immigrant  In- 
spector, et  al.  V.  Hanges  et  al.,  222  Federal  Reporter  745  (1915).    As  to 
the  finality  of  decisions  by  Immigration  Authorities  see  U.  S.  ex  rel. 
Barlin  v.  Rodgers,  191  Federal  Reporter  973  (1911).    For  protests  against  ! 
such  deportations,  see  Chafee,  Freedom  of  Speech  (1920);  Panunzio,  C.  M.,  i 
The  Deportation  Cases  of  1019-1920  (1921);  Post,  L.  F.,  The  Deportation 
Delirium  of  1920  (1923);  "Investigation  of  L.  F.  Post  on  Deportations,"  i 
House  Committee  on  Rules,  66th  Cong.,  2d  Ses.,  on  H.  R.  522;  Stephenson,  |i 
G.  M.,  History  of  American  Immigration,  Ch.  XIV  (1926), 

"  Also  see  Act  of  May  26,  1926,  infra,  p.  172,  note  3. 


FEDERAL  IMMIGRATION  LEGISLATION,  1914-1921  141 


requests  that  such  alien  be  admitted,  and  with  the  approval 
of  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  marries  such  alien  at  a  United 
States  Immigration  station." 

Such  then  were  the  various  restrictions  on  immigra- 
Ition  in  existence  in  the  United  States  prior  to  the  Quota 
Act  of  May  19,  1921,  as  amended  by  the  Act  of  May  11, 
1922.  It  is  worth  while  to  note  again,  that  since  the  be- 
ginning of  Federal  legislation  bar  after  bar  has  been  put 
up,  restriction  after  restriction  has  been  created — with 
not  a  single  step  backward.  Yet  all  of  these  restrictions 
so  far  have  been  qualitative.  Before  1910  it  was  evident 
that  some  numerical  restrictions  would  be  necessary  to  stem 
the  ever-swelling  tide,  in  addition  to  the  existing  qualita- 
tive restrictions.  Action  was  delayed,  however,  until  the 
Immigration  Commission  could  report  and  then  before 
any  legislation  could  be  passed,  the  World  War  suddenly 
and  virtually  stopped  all  immigration  to  the  United  States. 
Yet  that  very  war,  in  the  long  run,  necessitated  some  plan 
for  numerical  restriction  to  an  even  greater  extent  than 
was  the  case  prior  to  1914.  In  the  next  two  chapters  we 
shall  analyze  first  the  emergency  legislation  that  was  en- 
acted, and  then  the  Act  of  1924,  in  each  of  which  was  in- 
corporated a  plan  for  numerical  restriction. 


CHAPTER  VI 


The  Emergency  Quota  Legislation,  1921-1924 

Purpose  of  the  Act  of  May  19,  1921— Provisions  of  the  act — The  first  year 
of  its  operation — Problems  created  by  it — Its  life  extended  for  two  years  by 
the  Act  of  May  11,  1922 — The  second  year  under  the  law — The  third  year 
under  the  law — Effects  on  the  old  and  new  immigration — Net  immigration 
into  the  United  States — Immigration  by  races  or  peoples — English-speaking 
immigrants — Conclusion. 

The  immigration  act  of  May  19,  1921  was  passed  as  a 
makeshift,  temporary,  emergency  measure  to  stem  the  tide 
of  those  unfortunates  of  Europe  who  desired  to  come  into 
this  so-called  ''Land  of  Promise,"  in  order  to  escape  the 
misery  and  burdens  which  they  inherited  from  the  war. 
805,228  had  already  come  in  the  preceding  year  and  mil- 
lions were  preparing  to  depart  from  their  native  lands.^ 
It  was  evident  that  fully  two  millions  would  be  willing  and 
able  to  come  each  year  for  several  years  against  which  the 
literacy  and  other  tests  would  afford  only  a  frail  barrier. 
Here  was  an  emergency.  There  was  little  or  no  time  for 
an  intelligent  and  historical  study  of  the  question.  It 
would  take  several  years  to  do  that;  but  in  the  meantime 
drastic  numerical  or  quantitative  restrictions  were  neces- 
sary. The  quota  act  of  May  19,  1921,  whose  life  was  ex- 
tended by  the  act  of  May  11,  1922  to  July  1,  1924  pro- 
vided for  a  quantitative  limitation,  which  thereby  gave 
Congress  the  opportunity  to  work  out  a  more  permanent 
plan  for  numerical  restriction. 

Section  2(a)  provided,  'That  the  number  of  aliens  o'f 
any  nationality^  who  may  be  admitted  under  the  immigra- 

*This  statement  is  based  on  various  reports  made  by  government  offi- 
cials, including  those  of  the  Commissioner-General  of  Immigration.  In  an 
address  before  the  Chicago  Association  of  Commerce,  June  1,  1927,  Senator 
Reed  of  Pennsylvania  stated  that  there  are  now  more  than  1,500,000 
foreigners  seeking  to  enter  the  United  States;  this  number  having  already 
filed  applications  at  our  consulates  abroad. 

*  See  article  by  Dickinson,  E.  D.,  "The  Meaning  of  Nationality  in  the 
Recent  Immigration  Acts,"  American  Journal  of  International  Law,  Vol. 
19  (1925),  pp.  344-347. 

142 


EMERGENCY  QUOTA  LEGISLATION,  1921-1924  143 


tion  laws  to  the  United  States  in  any  fiscal  year  shall  be 
1  limited  to  3  per  centum  of  the  number  of  foreign-born  per- 
sons of  such  nationality  resident  in  the  United  States  as 
determined  by  the  United  States  census  of  1910.  This  pro- 
vision shall  not  apply  to  the  following,  and  they  shall  not 
be  counted  in  reckoning  any  of  the  percentage  limits  pro- 
vided in  this  act:  (1)  Government  officials,  their  families, 
attendants,  servants,  and  employees;  (2)  aliens  in  con- 
tinuous transit  through  the  United  States;  (3)  aliens  law- 
fully admitted  to  the  United  States  who  later  go  in  transit 
from  one  part  of  the  United  States  to  another  through 
foreign  contiguous  territory;  (4)  aliens  visiting  the  United 
States  as  tourists  or  temporarily  for  business  or  pleasure; 
(5)  aliens  from  countries  immigration  from  which  is  regu- 
lated in  accordance  with  treaties  or  agreements  relating 
solely  to  immigration;  (6)  aliens  from  the  so-called  Asiatic 
barred  zone,  as  described  in  section  three  of  the  Immigra- 
tion Act;  (7)  aliens  who  have  resided  continuously  for  at 
least  five  years  immediately  preceding  the  time  of  their  ap- 
plication for  admission  to  the  United  States  in  the  Dominion 
of  Canada,  Newfoundland,  the  Republic  of  Cuba,  the  Re- 
public of  Mexico,  countries  of  Central  and  South  America, 
or  adjacent  islands;  or  (8)  aliens  under  the  age  of  eighteen 
who  are  children  of  citizens  of  the  United  States." 

^'(b)  For  the  purpose  of  this  Act  nationality  shall  be 
determined  by  country  of  birth.  .  . 

(c)  This  subdivision  provided  the  manner  in  which  the 
law  was  to  be  put  into  operation  and  how  conditions  re- 
sulting from  changed  boundaries  were  to  be  dealt  with. 

"(d)  When  the  maximum  number  of  aliens  of  any  nation- 
ality who  may  be  admitted  in  any  fiscal  year  under  this 
Act  shall  have  been  admitted  all  other  aliens  of  such 
nationality,  except  as  otherwise  provided  in  this  Act,  who 
may  apply  for  admission  during  the  same  fiscal  year  shall 
be  excluded;  Provided,  That  the  number  of  aliens  of  any 
nationality  who  may  be  admitted  in  any  month  shall  not 
exceed  20  per  centum  of  the  total  number  of  aliens  of  such 
nationality  who  are  admissible  in  that  fiscal  year :  Provided 


144 


EMERGENCY  QUOTA  LEGISLATION,  1921-1924  145 


further,  That  aliens  returning  from  a  temporary  visit 
abroad,  aliens  who  are  professional  actors,  artists,  lecturers, 
singers,  nurses,  ministers  of  any  religious  denomination, 
professors  for  colleges  or  seminaries,  aliens  belonging  to  any 
recognized  learned  profession,  or  aliens  employed  as  do- 
mestic servants,  may,  if  otherwise  admissible,  be  admitted 
notwithstanding  the  maximum  number  of  aliens  of  the  same 
nationality  admissible  in  the  same  month  or  fiscal  year,  as 
the  case  may  be,  shall  have  entered  the  United  States;  but 
aliens  of  the  classes  included  in  this  proviso  who  enter  the 
United  States  before  such  maximum  number  shall  have 
entered  shall  (unless  excluded  by  subdivision  (a)  from 
being  counted)  be  counted  in  reckoning  the  percentage 
limits  provided  in  this  Act:  Provided  further.  That  in  the 
enforcement  of  this  Act  preference  shall  be  given  so  far  as 
possible  to  the  wives,  parents,  brothers,  sisters,  children 
under  eighteen  years  of  age,  and  fiancees,  (1)  of  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  (2)  of  aliens  now  in  the  United  States 
who  have  applied  for  citizenship  in  the  manner  provided 
by  law,  or  (3)  of  persons  eligible  to  United  States  citizen- 
ship who  served  in  the  military  or  naval  forces  of  the 
United  States  at  any  time  between  April  6,  1917,  and 
November  11,  1918,  both  dates  inclusive,  and  have  been 
separated  from  such  forces  under  honorable  conditions." 

Section  3  provided  for  the  publication  by  the  Commis- 
sioner-General of  Immigration  of  a  statement  showing  the 
annual  and  monthly  quotas  of  each  nation,  and  'Vhen  75 
per  centum  of  the  maximum  number  of  any  nationality 
admissible  during  the  fiscal  year  shall  have  been  admitted 
such  statements  shall  be  issued  weekly  thereafter." 

Section  4  stated  ''That  the  provisions  of  this  Act  are  in 
addition  to  and  not  in  substitution  for  the  provisions  of 
the  immigration  laws." 

Section  6  provided  that  it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  person 
to  bring  into  the  United  States  any  alien  not  admissible 
under  the  terms  of  this  Act  or  regulations  made  there- 
under, subject  to  a  fine  of  $200  for  each  alien  so  brought, 
''and  in  addition  a  sum  equal  to  that  paid  by  such  alien 


146  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


for  his  transportation  from  the  initial  point  of  departure, 
indicated  in  his  ticket,  to  the  port  of  arrival,  such  latter 
sum  to  be  delivered  by  the  collector  of  customs  to  the  alien 
on  whose  account  assessed."  The  original  act  imposed  no 
penalty  for  its  excess  of  quota,  the  above  penalties  being 
provided  by  the  joint  resolution  approved  May  11,  1922, 
and  it  is  certain  that  a  considerable  part  of  the  difficulties 
which  arose  during  the  first  year  of  the  law's  history  would 
have  been  avoided  had  violations  of  the  law  resulted  in 
monetary  loss  to  the  carriers  concerned. 

Under  the  original  act  aliens  were  exempt  from  the 
quota  provisions  after  one  year's  residence  in  a  country  of 
the  New  World,  but  as  amended  a  five  year's  residence 
was  required,  due  to  the  fact  that  several  thousand 
Europeans,  who  because  of  quota  limitations  and  other 
obstacles  could  not  come  to  the  United  States,  emigrated 
to  Cuba,  Mexico,  and  South  America  with  the  obvious 
intention  of  coming  here  at  the  expiration  of  one  year. 
The  law,  however,  did  not  prohibit  the  entrance  of  such 
aliens  within  five  years  but  only  provided  that  they  should 
be  subject  to  the  quota  and  other  immigration  law^  if  they 
applied  for  admission  within  that  period. 

In  effect  the  law  applied  only  to  immigration  from 
Europe,  Siberia,  Persia,  Africa,  Australia,  New  Zealand,  the 
territory  formerly  comprising  Asiatic  Turkey,  and  certain 
islands  in  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans,  which  is  also 
true  of  the  present  quota  law. 

The  statistical  record  of  operations  under  the  quota 
law  for  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1922,  is  shown  in  the 
table  on  page  147. 

During  the  fiscal  year  1921-1922,  there  were  309,556  im- 
migrant aliens  admitted,  being  less  than  the  number  for 
the  fiscal  year  1921  by  495,672.  During  this  same  period 
122,949  non-immigrant  ahens,  viz.,  those  not  coming  for 
permanent  residence,  entered,  as  compared  with  172,935 
the  year  previous, — a  decrease  of  49,986.  During  the  year 
13,731  aliens  were  rejected  for  all  causes,  a  decrease  from 
the  prercding  year  of  only  48,  and  4,345  were  arrested  after 


\ 


EMERGENCY  QUOTA  LEGISLATION,  1921-1924  147 


Table  1 — Immigration  of  Aliens  into  the  United  States  Under  the 
Per  Centum  Limit  Act  of  May  19,  1921,  during  the  Fiscal  Year  1921-22 


Country  or  place  oi  birtn. 

1  otal  ad- 
missible 
during 
fiscal  year 

Number 
admitted 

and 
charged 
to  quota 
during 
tne  tiscal 

year 
1921-22 

Per  cent 
of  quota 
admitted 

Albania   

288 

280 

97 

Austria   

7,451 

4,797 

64.4 

Rplffium                                          .  . . 

1,563 

1,581 

101.2 

Bulgaria  

302 

301 

99.6 

1  A  OOO 

no  o 

yy.o 

Danzig   

301 

85 

28.2 

Denmark                             . .     . .   

5,694 

3,284 

57.6 

Finland   

3^921 

3^038 

77.5 

Flume 

71 

18 

25.3 

France   

5,729 

4,343 

75^9 

Germany   

68'059 

19,053 

28 

Greece                              . .  .   

3'294 

3^447 

104.7 

Hungary   

5!638 

6!035 

107.2 

Italy   

42,057 

42^149 

100.2 

Luxemburg 

92 

93 

101.1 

Netherlands   

3,607 

2,408 

66.8 

Norway   

12^202 

5,941 

48.7 

Poland  (includinf  eastern  Galicia) 

25^827 

26^129 

101.1 

Portugal    (including    Azores   and  Madeira 

Islands) 

2,520 

2,486 

98.6 

Rumania 

7,419 

7^429 

100.1 

T?iis«;ia   finflndino'  Sihpria^ 

34'284 

28,908 

84.4 

Spain 

912 

888 

97.4 

Swpdpn 

20,042 

8,766 

43.8 

Switzerland   

3,752 

3,723 

99.2 

TTnitpd  TCiriffdnm 

77^342 

42'670 

55.2 

Yugoslavia 

6^426 

6^644 

103.5 

Other  Europe  (including  Andorra,  Gibraltar, 

T  ,ippV>tpn>;tpin    TV/Tnlffi    IVTpmpl    TVTnnnpn  S'ln 

XJlCV^ll  iJdlo  LCI  J-A,    l.\±CXx\jCXt    XVJ-dlld,    XtJ.vJ11CX\-/\_/,  kJcLll 

IVTfirinn    nnrl  TfPinnH^ 

86 

144 

167.4 

1,589 

1,574 

99' 

"D  ~  1 „  i- ^ -rt.  — 

5o 

214 

382.1 

906 

1,008 

111.2 

Turkey  (Europe  and  Asia,  including  Smyrna 

656 

1,096 

166.9 

Other  Asia  (including  Persia,  Rhodes,  Cyprus, 

and  territory  other  than  S'beria.  which  is 

not  included  in  the  Asiatic  barred  zone. 

Persons  born  in  Siberia  are  included  in  the 

81 

528 

651.9 

^  All  tables  in  this  chapter  are  taken  from  annual  reports  of  the  Com- 
missioner-General of  Immigration  to  the  Secretary  of  Labor. 


148 


IMMICxRATION  RESTRICTION 


Table  1. — Immigration  of  Aliens  into  the  United  States  Under  the 
Per  Centum  Limit  Act  of  May  19,  1921,  during  the  Fiscal  Year 
mi-22.— {Continued.) 


1 1  TTi  h  p  r 

admitted 

Total  ad- 

and 

missible 

charged 

Per  cent 

Country  or  place  of  birth 

during 

to  quota 

of  quota 

fiscal  year 

during 

admitted 

1921-22 

the  fiscal 

year 

1921-22 

122 

195 

159.8 

Australia   

279 

279 

100 

54 

75 

138.9 

Atlantic  islands  (other  than  Azores,  Madeira, 

and  islands  adjacent  to  the  American  con- 

65 

83 

127.7 

Pacific  islands  (other  than  New  Zealand  and 

islands  adjacent  to  the  American  conti- 

26 

13 

50 

Total   

356,995 

243,953 

68.3 

entry  and  deported,  as  compared  with  4,517  in  the  fiscal 
year  1921. 

The  marked  decline  in  immigration  for  the  year  1921-1922 
must  undoubtedly  be  attributed  to  the  operation  of  the 
Act  of  May  19,  1921.  The  admissions  in  excess  of  quotas, 
shown  in  the  above  table,  the  total  number  being  2,508, 
represented  a  theoretically  temporary  disposition  of  cases 
in  which  absolute  and  immediate  rejection  would  have 
inflicted  great  hardship  on  innocent  immigrants.  Refer- 
ence to  the  sources  of  the  principal  excesses — Other  Asia; 
Turkey,  Hungary,  Poland,  and  Yugoslavia — is  probably 
sufficient  to  explain  and  also  to  justify  the  action  taken  by 
the  officials  in  exercising  leniency  in  these  cases.  Nearly 
all  of  the  excess  admissions  occurred  during  the  first  six 
months  of  the  fiscal  year,  before  the  seriousness  of  the 
law  had  been  fully  realized.  The  arrival  of  these  aliens 
after  their  respective  quotas  were  exhausted  represents 
in  part  the  eagerness  of  the  aliens  themselves  to  get  in  be- 
fore the  gates  were  closed,  and  in  part  the  efforts  of  com- 
peting steamship  lines  to  carry  as  much  as  possible  of  the 


149 


150  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


limited  immigrant  business  of  the  year.    The  latter  seema 
to  have  been  by  far  the  more  important  factor,  for  it  was 
inevitable  that  the  alien  steamship  companies  would  try  tc' 
do  everything  possible  to  nullify  the  law  for  selfish  pur- 
poses.   The  President  wrote  on  September  9,  1921,  "1 
haven't  any  doubt  in  the  world  but  the  enforcement  ol 
the  immigration  laws  is  working  many  a  hardship."  Dur-j 
ing  these  early  months  of  adjustment  to  numerical  restric- 
tions, both  Congress  and  the  ofiicials  proved  that  theyj 
were  not  so  inhumane  as  some  would  have  us  believe.; 
Congress  passed  resolutions  granting  relief  in  several  cases. 
The  last  group  admission  in  these  excess  cases  occurred 
under  a  departmental  order  of  December  23,  1921,  known  as 
the  Christmas  order,  which  saved  upward  of  1,000  immi- 
grants from  immediate  deportation.   Following  this  a  more 
rigid  application  of  the  law  was  inaugurated  and  a  con- 
siderable number  of  aliens  were  rejected  and  deported,  with  ' 
the  result  that  comparatively  few  excess-quota  cases  arose  ■ 
during  the  latter  months  of  the  fiscal  year. 

The  administration  of  the  quota  law  during  its  initial 
year  developed  many  problems,  and,  especially  during  the 
first  six  months  of  its  operation,  greatly  overtaxed  the 
machinery  of  the  service  and  particularly  the  facilities  at 
Ellis  Island,  but  on  the  other  hand  this  per  centum  law. 
accomplished  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  obviously  en- 
acted with  a  degree  of  success  which  few  anticipated,  for 
according  to  a  careful  estimate  it  kept  from  our  shores 
1,750,000  to  2,000,000  immigrants,  few  of  whom  we  would 
have  been  prepared  to  receive  and  care  for  in  a  year  of  un- 
employment and  readjustment. 

A  glance  at  the  foregoing  table  will  clearly  show  that 
while  the  countries  of  southern  and  eastern  Europe,  in- 
cluding Asiatic  Turkey  and  the  new  nations  created  out  of 
Turkish  territory  since  the  World  War,  in  the  main  ex- 
hausted, and  in  several  instances  exceeded,  the  quotas 
allotted  to  them,  the  opposite  was  true  of  nearly  all  of  the 
countries  of  northern  and  western  Europe,  which,  for  the 
purpose  of  this  discussion,  include  the  British  Islands, 


'    EMERGENCY  QUOTA  LEGISLATION,  1921-1924  151 

Scandinavia,  Germany,  Belgium,  Netherlands,  Switzer- 
land, and  France.  The  status  of  these  two  areas,  as  well 
as  that  of  all  other  countries  which  are  within  the  scope 
of  the  quota  law,  is  shown  in  the  table  which 
follows: 


Table  2. — Immigration  of  Aliens  Into  the  United  States  Under  the  Per 
Centum  Limit  Act  of  May  19,  1921,  During  the  Fiscal  Year  1921-22, 
BY  Specified  Areas 


Area 

Total  num- 
ber admis- 
sible during 
fiscal  year 
1921-22 

Number  ad- 
mitted and 
charged  to 
quota  dur- 
ing the 
fiscal  year 
1921-22 

Per  cent 
of  quota 
admitted 

Northern  and  western  Europe  

198,082 

91,862 

46.4 

Southern  and  eastern  Europe  and 

158,200 

150,774 

95.3 

Other   

713 

1,317 

184.7 

This  table  needs  little  comment,  but  it  is  interesting  to 
note  that  the  older  sources  of  immigration,  in  northern 
and  western  Europe,  exhausted  less  than  one-half  of  their 
quotas  during  the  fiscal  year,  while  on  the  other  hand 
Russia  was  the  only  country  of  southern  and  eastern 
Europe  for  which  any  considerable  part  of  a  quota  re- 
mained on  June  30.  In  other  words,  the  movement  of  the 
year  from  the  older  sources  was  apparently  a  perfectly 
normal  one,  although  considerably  smaller  than  it  was  prior 
to  the  World  War,  but  it  is  impossible  to  say  how  many 
aliens  would  have  come  from  southern  and  eastern  Europe 
and  Turkey  had  it  not  been  for  the  limitation  afforded  by 
the  per  centum  limit  act.  Reference  to  Table  1  will  show 
that  the  large  percentage  of  the  excess  admissions  coming 
from  "Other  sources"  is  in  the  main  due  to  the  influx  from 
"Other  Asia,"  528  being  admitted  from  this  source  tempo- 
rarily and  otherwise,  whereas  the  total  quota  for  the  year 
was  only  81.  It  may  be  explained  that  the  excess  in  this 
instance  was  for  the  most  part  attributable  to  the  coming 
of  the  groups  of  so-called  Assyrian  refugees,  who  were 


152  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


forced  to  take  refuge  in  Mesopotamia  after  fleeing  fron 
their  homes  in  Persia  during  the  war  and  who  lated  apphe( , 
for  admission  at  various  Atlantic  and  Pacific  ports. 

When  the  quota  law,  which,  as  before  stated,  expiree 
V  by  limitation  on  June  30,  1922,  was  extended  for  two  years 
certain  changes  which  had  occurred  during  the  year  necessi- 
tated some  revision  of  the  basic  population  of  various  coun  i 
tries.    Germany's  quota  was  somewhat  reduced  and  Po- 
land's correspondingly  increased  through  the  partition  oi^ 
Upper  Silesia.   Separate  quotas  were  established  for  areaj 
known  as  Esthonia,  Lithuania,  Latvia,  and  Bessarabia, 
all  of  which  territory  was  included  with  Russia  in  the 
quota  allotment  of  1921-22.    A  separate  quota  was  giver 
to  Russian  Armenia,  and  Turkish  Armenia  and  the  Smyrna 
region  were  merged  with  Turkey.   Iceland  and  the  Meme] 
region,  which  were  included  with  "Other  Europe"  were 
given  separate  quota  allotments.   The  quotas  of  New  Zea-jj 
land  and  Pacific  Islands  were  merged  and  other  minon 
changes  made.  1 

The  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1923  was  the  second  com-, 
plete  year  during  which  the  quota  limit  act  of  May  19,  1921 
was  in  operation.  The  number  of  immigrants  admitted 
reached  a  total  of  522,919  during  the  year,  compared  to| 
309,556  such  admissions  in  the  fiscal  year  1922,  an  increase 
of  213,363.  This  gain  was  almost  entirely  due  to  in- 
creased immigration  from  British  North  America  and 
Mexico,  which  countries  were  and  still  are  not  within  the 
scope  of  the  quota  provisions,  and  to  the  fact  that  natives 
of  north  and  west  European  countries  used  90  per  cent 
of  their  allotted  quotas  in  the  year  1922-23,  compared  with 
only  46.4  per  cent  in  the  preceding  fiscal  year.  During  the 
year  1923  there  were  335,480  aliens  charged  to  the  quota, 
leaving  187,439  to  enter  otherwise.  Of  the  latter,  117,011; 
were  admitted  from  Canada,  63,768  from  Mexico,  13,181 
from  the  West  Indies,  and  smaller  numbers  from  other 
sources,  only  a  minor  part  of  such  immigration  being  sub-i 
ject  to  the  provisions  of  the  quota  law. 


153 


154  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


The  following  table  shows  the  operation  of  the  quoU 
law  during  the  two  fiscal  years  ended  June  30,  1922  anc 
1923: 

Table  3. — Immigration  Quotas  Allotted  to  Specified  Countries  oqn 
Regions  of  Birth  and  the  Number  of  Aliens  Admitted  and  Chargb 
Against  Such  Quota  Allotments,  Fiscal  Years  Ended  June  30,  195 
and  1923 


Country  or  region  of  birth 


Albania   

Armenia   

Armenia  (Russian)   

Austria  

Belgium   

Bulgaria  

Czechoslovakia   

Danzig,  Free  City  of  

Denmark   

Finland   

Fiume,  Free  State  of  

France   

Germany  

Greece   

Hungary   

Iceland   

Italy  

Luxemburg   

Netherlands  

Norway   

Poland  (including  Eastern  Galicia)  .  . 

Portugal  (including  Azores  and  Madeira 
Islands)   

Rumania   

Russia  (including  Siberia)  

Esthonian  region   

Latvian  region  

Lithuanian  and  Memel  regions  

Spain   

Sweden   

Switzerland   

United  Kingdom  

Yugoslavia   

Other  Europe  (including  Andorra,  Gib- 
raltar, Liechtenstein,  Malta,  Monaco, 
and  San  Marino ;  and  Memel  and 
Iceland  for  1922)  

Palestine   

Syria  

Turkey  (European  and  Asiatic,  includ 
ing  Smyrna  region ;  and  Turkish 
Armenian  region  for  1923)  

Other  Asia  (including  Cyprus,  Hedjaz, 
Iraq  (Mesopotamia,  Persia,  Rhodes, 
and  any  other  Asiatic  territory  not 
included  in  the  barred  zone.  Persons 
born  in  Asiatic  Russia  are  included 
in  the  Russia  quota)  

Africa   

Australia   

New  Zealand  and  Pacific  Islands..., 

Atlantic  islands  (other  than  Azores) 
Canary  Islands,  Madeira,  and  islands 
adjacent  to  the  American  continents 


1923 


Quota 

Number 

ad- 
mitted 

Quota 

Number 

ad- 
mitted 

1923 

1922 

288 

288 

^88 

280 

100.0 

97.0 

•  •  •  • 

1,574 
•  •  ■  ■ 

99.0 

230 

•  •  1  • 

-I  n  W  A 

100.0 

7,451 

7,358 

7,451 

4,797 

98.8 

64.4 

1,563 

1,563 

1,563 

1,581 

100.0 

101.2 

302 

295 

302 

301 

97.7 

99.6 

14,357 

14,357 

14,282 

14,248 

100.0 

99.8 

Qni 

OU  i 

263 

301 

85 

80.5 

28.2 

5,619 

5,226 

5,694 

3,284 

93.0 

57.6 

3,921 

3,921 

3,921 

3,038 

100.0 

77.. 5 

71 

67 

'71 

18 

94.4 

25.3 

5,729 

5,034 

5,729 

4,343 

87.9 

75.9 

67,607 

49,258 

68,059 

19,053 

73.0 

28.0 

3,294 

3,294 

3,294 

3,447 

100.0 

104.7 

5,638 

5,638 

5,638 

6,035 
■  '  ■  ' 

100.0 

107.2 

75 

oy 

78  6 

*  ■  ■  ■ 

42  057 

42,057 

42  057 

42,149 

1  fin  n 

100.2 

92 

92 

92 

93 

100.0 

101.1 

3  607 

3,607 

3,607 

2,408 

100.0 

66.8 

12^202 

12,202 

12,202 

5,941 

100.0 

48.7 

31,146 

29,730 

25,827 

26,129 

95.5 

101.1 

2,465 

2,465 

2,520 

2,486 

100.0 

98.6 

7,419 

7,419 

7,419 

7,429 

100 

100.1 

24,405 

24,405 

34,284 

28,908 

100 

84.4 

1,348 

241 

17.9 

1,540 

1,513 

98.3 

.... 

2,460 

2,460 

.... 

100 

.... 

912 

912 

912 

888 

100 

97.4 

20,042 

19,867 

20,042 

8,766 

99.1 

43.8 

3,752 

3,752 

3,752 

3,723 

100 

99.2 

77,342 

77.542 

77,342- 

42,670 

100 

55.2 

6,426 

6,426 

6,42B 

6,644- 

100 

103.5 

86 

86 

86 

144 

100 

167.4 

57 

57 

56 

214 

100 

382.1 

928 

928 

906 

1,008 

100 

166.9 

2,888 

2,388 

656 

1,096 

100 

111.2 

81 

81 

81 

528 

100 

651.9 

122 

122 

122 

195 

100 

159.8 

279 

279 

279 

279 

100 

100 

80 

80 

80 

88 

100 

110 

121 

118 

65 

83 

97.5 

127.7 

335,480 

356,995 

243,953 

93.8 

68.3 

Per  cent  of 
quota  admitted 


EMERGENCY  QUOTA  LEGISLATION,  1921-1924  155 


;  The  real  significance  of  the  data  shown  in  the  foregoing 
ompilation  will  be  more  readily  comprehended  by  a  study 
f  the  following  table  in  which  are  compared  the  quota 
Ilotments  of,  and  the  number  of  aliens  admitted  from, 
lorthern  and  western  Europe;  southern  and  Eastern 
Europe,  including  Asiatic  Turkey  and  ''Other  Asia,"  and 
iertain  other  sources  subject  to  the  quota  law,  during  the 
wo  fiscal  years  under  consideration: 


?ABLE  4. — Immigration  Quotas  Allotted  to  SpEariED  Areas,  and  the 
Number  of  Aliens  Admitted  and  Charged  Against  Such  Quota 
Allotments,  Fiscal  Years  Ended  June  30,  1922  and  1923 


Areas 

1923 

1922 

Per  cent  of 
quota  admitted 

Quota 

No.  ad- 
mitted 

Quota 

No.  ad- 
mitted 

1923 

1922 

J^orthern   and  western 

Southern    and  eastern 
i  Europe,  including  Asi- 
atic Turkey  and  other 

Africa,    Australia,  New 
Zealand  and  other  Pa- 
cific islands,  and  At- 

Total  

197,555 
159,646 
602 

177,943 
156,938 
599 

198,082 
158,367 
546 

91,862 

151,446 

645 
243,953 

90. 

98.3 

99.5 

46.4 
95.6 
118.1 

357,803 

335,480 

356,995 

93.8 

68.3 

'  The  chief  significance  of  the  foregoing  figures  lies  in  the 
fact  that  while  in  the  fiscal  year  1922  only  46.4  per  cent 
of  the  combined  quotas  of  northern  and  western  European 
countries  were  exhausted,  90  per  cent  of  the  total  allot- 
ment was  utilized  in  the  fiscal  year  1923,  the  increase  in 
numbers  being  from  91,862  in  1921-22  to  177,943  in  1922-23. 
Table  3  shows  that  the  quotas  of  the  United  Kingdom, 
Sweden,  Norway,  Denmark,  Belgium,  Netherlands,  and 
Switzerland  were  either  completely  or  practically  exhausted, 
the  German  quota  being  the  only  one  of  this  group  which 
reached  the  end  of  the  fiscal  year  with  any  considerable 


156  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


balance.  This  was  contrary  to  the  arguments  of  the  opp«j 
nents  of  the  quota  law,  who,  prior  to  this,  contended  thjj 
the  immigrants  from  Northern  and  Western  Europe  woul 
not  exhaust  their  quotas. 

On  the  other  hand  the  quotas  of  the  southern  and  easter ' 
European  and  Near  East  group  were  substantially  e> 
hausted  in  both  years,  the  small  increase  in  1922-23  beiii 
due  to  the  fact  that  more  favorable  conditions  surrounc  | 
ing  the  immigration  of  natives  of  Russia  made  possible  th  ,1 
coming  of  increased  numbers  of  that  nationality.  | 

Due  to  the  fact  that  20  per  cent  of  a  quota  allotmei] 
could  be  admitted  in  any  month,  several  of  the  national! 
ties  concerned  completely  exhausted  their  quotas  for  th 
fiscal  year  1923  in  November.  This  experience  amply  justi 
fied  the  wisdom  of  fixing  a  monthly  limit  and  indicated  th 
necessity  for  making  the  monthly  quota  smaller.  Fortu 
nately,  however,  for  the  Immigration  Service  some  of  th 
larger  quotas  were  better  distributed,  not  being  exhaustei 
until  April  or  May.  New  problems  arose  during  the  yea 
and  already  existing  problems  were  in  some  cases  intensifiec 
particularly  that  of  preventing  illegal  entries  over  thi 
land  boundaries  and  at  seaports.  However,  restrictioi 
of  immigration  by  means  of  a  quota  system  had  vindicate( 
itself  by  this  time,  and  it  was  already  evident  that  th' 
plan  would  be  a  good  one  if  a  proper  basis  for  the  quot; 
scheme  could  be  worked  out,  together  with  amendment  ; 
to  eliminate  certain  administrative  difficulties. 

With  three  exceptions  the  quotas  of  all  countries  am 
places  included  in  the  quota  area  were  entirely  exhaustec 
during  the  fiscal  year  1923-24,  the  three  referred  to,  witl 
the  balance  remaining  in  their  respective  quotas  on  Jun( 
30,  being  Esthonia  124;  Free  State  of  Fiume,  5;  and  Ice 
land,  32.  The  complete  record  of  quota  transactions  during 
the  three  fiscal  years  1922-24,  is  shown  in  the  following 
table: 


EMERGENCY  QUOTA  LEGISLATION,  1921-1924  157 


Table  5. — Immigration  Quotas  Allotted  to  Specified  Countries  or  Regions  of  Birth, 
AND  TUB  Number  of  Aliens  Admitted  and  Charged  Against  Such  Quota  Allot- 
ments, Fiscal  Years  Ended  Junb  30,  1922,  1923,  and  1924 


Country  or  region  of  birth 


\lbania   

\rmenia  (Russian)   .  . . 

\ustria  

Belgium   

13ulj;aria   

Czechoslovakia   

Danzig,  Free  City  of.. 

Denmark   

Esthonia   

Finland   

Fiume,  Free  State  of.  . 

France   

(wrmany   

(;itat  Britain,  Ireland. 
(Jiicce   


Hungary  (including  Sopron  District). 

Ici  land   


Latvia  

Lithuania  (including  Memel  and  part 
of  Pinsk  region)  , 

Luxemburg  

Netherlands   

Ncirwaj'   , 

Poland  (including  Eastern  Galicia  and 
part  of  Pinsk  region)  

Portugal  (including  Azores  and  Madeira 
Islands)   , 

Rumania  

Russia,  European  and  Asiatic  (excluding 
barred  zone)   

Spain  (including  Canary  Islands)  

Sweden   

Switzerland   

Yugoslavia   

Other  Europe  (including  Andorra,  Gib- 
raltar, Liechtenstein,  Malta,  Monaco, 
and  San  Marino)  

Palestine   

Syria   

Turkey  (European  and  Asiatic,  includ- 
ing Smyrna  region,  and  Turkish- 
Armenian  region)   

Other  Asia  (including  Cyprus,  Hedjaz, 
Iraq  (Mesopotamia),  Persia,  Rhodes, 
and  any  other  Asiatic  territory  not 
included  in  the  barred  zone  ;  persons 
born  in  Asiatic  Russia  are  included 
in  the  Russia  quota)  

Africa  (other  than  Egypt)  

Egypt   

Atlantic  Islands  (other  than  Azores, 
Canary  Islands,  Madeira,  and  islands 
adjacent  to  the  American  continents) 

Australia   

New  Zealand  and  Pacific  islands  


Year  ended  June 
30, 1924 


Total 


Quota 


288 
230 
7,342 
1,563 
302 
14,357 
301 
5,619 
1,348 
3,921 
71 
5,729 
67,607 
77,342 
3,063 
5,747 
75 
42,057 
1,540 

2,629 
92 
3,607 
12,202 

30,977 

2,465 
7,419 

24,405 
912 

20,042 
3,752 
6,426 


57 

882 


2,654 


Number 

ad- 
mitted 


92 
104 
18 


121 
279 
80 


288 
230 
7,342 
1,563 
302 
14,357 
301 
5,619 
1,224 
3,921 
66 
5,729 
67,607 
77,342 
3,063 
5,747 
43 
42,057 
1,540 

2,629 
92 
3,607 
12,202 

30,977 

2,465 
7,419 

24,405 
912 

20,042 
3,752 
6,426 


2,654 


92 
104 
18 


121 
279 
80 


357,803  357,642  357,803 


Year  ended  June 
30,  1923 


Quota 


288 
230 
7,451 
1,563 
302 
14,357 
301 
5,619 
1,348 
3,921 
71 
5,729 
67,607 
77,342 
3,294 
5,038 
75 
42,057 
1,540 

2,460 
92 
3,607 
12,202 

31,146 

2,465 
7,419 

24,405 
912 

20,042 
3,752 
6,426 


57 
928 


81 
122 


121 
279 
80 


Number 

ad- 
mitted 


288 
230 
7,358 
1,563 
295 
14,357 
263 
5,226 
241 
3,921 
67 
5,034 
49,258 
77,342 
3,294 
5,638 
59 

42,057 
1,513 

2,460 
92 
3,607 
12,202 

29,730 

2,465 
7,419 

24,405 
912 

19,867 
3,752 
6,426 


57 

928 


2,388 


81 
122 


118 
279 
80 


,480 


Year  ended  June 
30, 1922 


Quota 


288 
1,589 
7,451 
1,563 

302 
14,282 

301 
5,694 

3",  921 
71 

5,729 
68,059 
77,342 
3,294 
5,638 

42,057 


92 
3,607 
12,202 

25,827 

2,520 
7,419 

34,284 
912 

20,042 
3,752 
6,426 


86 
56 
906 


656 


81 
122 


65 
279 
80 


*  Turkish  and  Russian  Armenia  for  the  year  1922. 

t  Esthonia,  Latvia,  and  Lithuania  included  with  Russia  for  the  year  1922. 
%  Iceland  included  with  other  Europea  for  the  year  1922. 


158 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


The  next  table  shows  the  same  information  classifiedf' 
by  specified  groups  of  countries. 


Table  6. — Immigration  Quotas  Allotted  to  Specified  Areas  and  the 
Number  of  Aliens  Admitted  and  Charged  Against  Such  Quota 
Allotments,  Fiscal  Years  Ended  June  30,  1922,  1923  and  1924 


Areas 

1924 

1923 

1922 

Quota 

No.  ad- 
mitted 

Quota 

No.  ad- 
mitted 

Quota 

No.  ad- 
mitted 

Northern    and  western 

Southern     and  eastern 
Europe,  including  Asi- 
atic Turkey  and  other 

Africa,    Australia,  New 
Zealand  and  other  Pa- 
cific islands,  and  Atlan- 

197,555 
159,646 
602 

197,555 
159,485 
602 

197,555 
159,646 
602 

177,943 
156,938 
599 

198,082 
158,367 
546 

91,862 
151,446 
645 

357,803 

357,642 

357,803 

335,480 

356,995 

243,953 

A  total  of  879,302  aliens  were  admitted  to  the  United 
States  during  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1924,  of  which 
706,587  were  immigrants  and  172,715  were  non-immigrants. 
Only  357,642  admissions  were  charged  to  the  quota.  In 
other  words,  1^6  per  cent  more  aliens  were  admitted  outside 
the  quota  than  were  admitted  under  it.  The  706,587  immi- 
grants admitted  in  the  fiscal  year  1924  were  more  than 
the  intake  of  immigrants  in  any  year  up  to  1882,  and  ex- 
ceeded in  only  14  fiscal  years  of  our  history.  Legal  admis- 
sions from  countries  outside  the  quota  law  for  1923-24  are 
shown  in  the  table  below: 


Table  7. — Immigration  from  Nonquota  Countries  in  the  Fiscal  Years 

1923-24 


Country  of  last  permanent  residence 

Immi- 
grants 

Non-immi- 
grants 

Total 

7,098 

7,721 

14,819 

8,018 

2,220 

10,238 

193 

341 

534 

200,956 

9,211 

210,167 

2,004 

2,252 

4,256 

89,311 

4,580 

93,891 

9,297 

3,596 

12,893 

17,558 

19.394 

36,952 

80,682 

80,682 

58 

23 

81 

Total   

334,493 

130,020 

464,513 

EMERGENCY  QUOTA  LEGISLATION,  1921-1924  159 

The  following  table  is  given  in  order  to  compare  the 
figures  for  the  fiscal  year  1924  with  other  years: 


Table  8. — Immigrant  Aliens  from  Certain  Countries  and  Areas  in 
Specified  Fiscal  Years 


Countries 

1914 

1921 

1922 

1923 

45,759 
48,277 
15,740 
34,184 

12,469 

1924 

England,  Scotland,  and  Wales. 

Norway,  Sweden,  and  Denmark 
Other   northern    and  western 

Total  

Austria   

Italv 

Other  southern  and  eastern  Eu- 

Turkey  in  Asia   

Total  

Grand  total  

48,729 
35.734 
24,688 
29,391 

25,591 

51,142 
6,803 
28,435 
22,854 

29,317 

25,153 
17,931 
10,579 
14,625 

11,149 

59,490 
75.091 
17,111 
35,577 

16,077 

164,133 

138,551 

79,437 

156,429 

203,346 

134,831 
143  321 
35,832 
283,738 
255'660 

40,876 
21,716 

4,947 
7  709 
28,502 
222,260 
6^398 

244,004 
11,735 

5,019 

3,457 
40,319 
17,'l43 

65,254 
1,998 

8,103 

3,333 
46,674 
17^507 

69,960 
2,183 

7,505 

4.871 
56,246 
12)649 

73,916 
2,820 

915,974 

525,548 

138,946 

153,674 

163,813 

86,139 
14,614 
37,620 

72,317 
30,758 
38,054 

46,810 
19,551 
24,812 

117,011 
63,768 
32,037 

200,690 
89,336 
49,711 

1,218,480 

805,228 

309,556 

522,919 

706,896 

With  the  exception  of  the  rapid  increase  in  immigration 
from  Germany  between  1921  and  1924,  the  record  of  the 
first  group  of  countries  presents  no  very  unusual  features. 
The  number  admitted  from  Germany  in  1914  was  not  far 
from  the  annual  average  for  15  or  20  years  prior  to  the 
war,  but  the  fact  that  more  than  twice  as  many  came  in 
1924  suggests  the  probability  that  except  for  quota  limita- 
tions a  revival  of  the  large  German  immigration  of  earlier 
years  might  have  been  expected.  The  number  coming  from 
Ireland  during  this  period  was  considerably  below  pre- 
war figures  and,  unlike  the  countries  of  Great  Britain  and 
Scandinavia,  it  had  not  increased  greatly  since  1921.  Al- 
though not  shown  separately  in  the  table,  it  is  of  interest 
to  note  that  in  the  year  1924  Scotland  contributed  33,471 


160  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


immigrants,  or  more  than  one-half  of  all  who  came  from 
the  four  British  countries.  In  this  connection  it  may  be 
stated  that  prior  to  the  war  immigration  from  Scotland 
averaged  about  14,000  annually. 

The  figures  in  the  second  and  third  groups  in  the  table' 
are  clearly  indicative  of  the  radical  effect  brought  about 
by  the  policy  of  restriction  which  began  with  the  enact- 
ment of  the  quota  limit  law  in  May,  1921.  The  record  of 
immigration  in  1914  from  the  countries  of  south  and  east 
Europe  and  the  Near  East,  although  a  little  higher  than 
the  pre-war  normal,  are  nevertheless  fairly  representative 
of  that  period.  By  1921,  as  the  table  shows,  there  had 
been  a  remarkably  quick  revival,  which  followed  an  almost 
complete  cessation  of  the  movement  from  these  sources 
during  the  war  years,  and,  as  pointed  out  in  the  annual 
reports  of  the  Commissioner-General  of  Immigration,  this 
revival  gave  every  promise  of  an  unprecedented  deluge  of 
immigration  when  peace  was  fully  established  and  trans- 
portation facilities  restored.  It  will  be  noted  that  in  1921 
the  contribution  of  Italy,  Greece,  and  Turkey  began  to 
approximate  pre-war  figures,  and  while  Austria,  Hungary, 
and  Russia,  formerly  prolific  sources  of  immigration,  sent 
comparatively  few  in  that  year,  a  large  part  of  the  244,004 
recorded  as  coming  from  other  south  and  east  Europe  came 
from  territory  once  belonging  to  those  three  countries. 
Then  came  the  limitations  imposed  by  the  quota  act  and 
during  the  three  years  it  was  in  force  the  total  number  ad- 
mitted from  south  and  east  Europe  and  Turkey  was  con- 
siderably below  the  partially  revived  immigration  from  the 
same  sources  in  1921,  and  less  than  one-half  as  great  as 
the  number  who  came  in  the  single  year  1914. 

In  the  case  of  both  of  the  European  groups  under  con- 
sideration the  extent  of  possible  immigration  was  limited 
by  the  quota  act,  and  what  the  influx  might  have  been 
except  for  that  restraint  can  only  be  conjectured.  It  is  safe 
to  say,  however,  that  it  would  have  far  exceeded  that  of 
any  like  period  in  our  immigration  history.    Natives  of 


EMERGENCY  QUOTA  LEGISLATION,  1921-1924  161 


Canada  and  Mexico,  and  persons  born  in  other  countries 
who  had  resided  there  for  five  years,  were  not  subject  to 
quota  Hmitations,  and  these  people  simply  came  in  un- 
precedented numbers  to  take  advantage  of  opportunities 
which  were  closed  or  largely  closed  to  European  immigrants. 

Under  the  per  centum  limit  act  of  1921,  20  per  cent  of  the 
quota  of  any  country  could  be  admitted  in  a  single  month. 
It  was  further  provided  that  certain  classes  of  aliens,  not- 
ably members  of  the  various  professions  and  domestic 
servants,  who  were  counted  against  quotas,  could  be  ad- 
mitted without  numerical  limit  when  such  quotas  became 
exhausted.  In  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1924,  nearly 
all  of  the  quotas,  large  and  small,  were  filled  before  Janu- 
ary 1,  with  the  result  that  during  the  remaining  six  months 
of  the  fiscal  year  considerable  numbers  were  admitted  under 
the  exceptions  referred  to. 

'The  number  admitted  in  excess  of  quotas  was  also 
added  t(5  by  reason  of  court  decisions,  notably  in  the  so- 
called  Gottlieb  case  wherein  United  States  Circuit  Judge 
Mack  ruled  that  the  liberal  exceptions  found  in  the  so-called 
'Asiatic  barred  zone'  of  the  immigration  act  of  1917  were 
also  applicable  in  the  per  centum  limit  law  which  was  en- 
acted four  years  thereafter.  Other  Federal  courts  at  New 
York  and  also  at  Boston  not  only  followed  the  Gottlieb 
decision  but  even  sought  to  enlarge  the  classes  to  which  it 
applied.  Under  the  circumstances  the  immigration  ser- 
vice could  not  do  otherwise  than  to  admit  applicants  who 
came  within  the  scope  of  these  decisions  until  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  on  May  26,  1924,  declared  that 
both  the  District  Court  and  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  were 
in  error,  and  that  exemptions  covering  a  specific  class  of 
aliens  mentioned  in  the  act  of  1917  could  not  be  made  to 
apply  in  the  case  of  aliens  who  had  been  excluded  under 
a  subsequent  law."^  Upward  of  20,000  aliens  w^ere  admitted 
under  the  court  decisions  referred  to,  and  in  order  to  avoid 

*  Annual  Report  of  the  Commissioner-General  of  Immigration  for  1924, 
p  5.   See  also  285  Fed.  295  and  infra,  p.  179. 


162  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


their  possible  deportation,  as  a  result  of  the  Supreme  Court 
decision,  Congress  provided  that  their  residence  in  the 
United  States  might  be  legalized. 

Briefly  stated,  then,  the  increase  of  183,977  admissions 
in  the  fiscal  year  1924  over  the  preceding  year  was  largely 
due  to  increased  immigration  from  Canada,  Mexico,  and 
other  nonquota  countries;  to  admissions,  under  exceptions 
after  quotas  became  exhausted,  whith  in  the  case  of  most 
countries  occurred  during  the  first  six  months  of  the  fiscal 
year;  to  the  fact  that  22,162  more  aliens  were  admitted 
and  charged  to  quotas  than  in  the  previous  year;  and 
finally,  to  admissions  under  the  court  decisions  above  re- 
ferred to,  which  admissions  were  subsequently  legalized 
by  Congress. 

The  net  additions  to  the  alien  population  of  the  United 
States  resulting  from  the  entire  inward  and  outward  alien 
movements  during  the  three  years  under  the  3  per  cent 
quota  law  is  of  interest  and  value.  The  following  table 
indicates  these  net  additions: 


Table  9. — Net  Additions  to  the  Alien  Population  of  the  United  States 
FOR  the  Fiscal  Years  1922,  1923,  1924 


Fiscal  Year 
1924 

Fiscal  Year 
1923 

Fiscal  Year 
1922 

Immigrant  aliens   

Net  addition  to  alien  population  . . 

706,896 
172,406 

522,919 
150,487 

309,556 
122,949 

879,302 

673,406 

432,505 

76,789 
139,956 

81,450 
119,136 

198,712 
146,672 

216,745 

200,586 

345,384 

662,557 

472,820 

87,121 

The  important  thing  to  note  in  the  above  table  is  the 
great  proportionate  increase  in  the  net  alien  population 
for  the  fiscal  years  1923  and  1924,  which  means  that  fewer 
emigrant  aliens  were  leaving  the  country  for  permanent 
residence  elsewhere.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  under 
the  quota  act  immigration  was  becoming  more  and  more 


EMERGENCY  QUOTA  LEGISLATION,  1921-1924  163 


permanent  in  character.  One  of  the  outstanding  things 
shown  by  the  above  statistical  record  for  the  fiscal  year 
1924,  was  that  while  the  number  of  immigrant  and  non- 
immigrant aliens  entering  the  country  was  more  than 
200,000  greater  than  in  the  fiscal  year  inTmediately  pre- 
ceding it,  the  increase  of  emigrant  and  nonemigrant  aliens 
departing  was  only  16,159. 

The  record  of  this  inward  and  outward  movement  of 
aliens  from  1908  to  the  present  time  is  shown  in  the  next 
table.  A  study  of  this  table,  condensed  as  it  is,  discloses 
several  significant  facts  concerning  the  trend  of  immigra- 
^tion  and  emigration  during  the  preceding  17  years,  notably 
the  unusual  outward  movement  following  the  industrial 
depression  of  1907-08;  the  relatively  large  emigration  dur- 
ing the  early  years  of  the  World  War,  which  it  is  known, 
included  many  who  went  to  join  the  colors  of  their  re- 
spective countries;  the  sudden  increase  in  both  immigra- 
tion and  emigration  following  the  armistice;  the  sharp 
decline  of  immigration  in  1922  resulting  from  the  quota 
limit  law,  and,  finally,  the  revival  of  immigration  and  the 
remarkable  decline  in  emigration  during  the  two  fiscal 
years  1923  and  1924,  also  under  the  quota  act.  In  the 
latter  connection  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  while  the 
number  of  aliens  of  both  classes  admitted  in  the  fiscal 
year  1924  was  exceeded  in  8  of  the  17  years  considered, 
the  permanent  addition  to  the  alien  population  was 
numerically  larger  in  1923-24  than  in  any  other  year  ex- 
cept 1910,  1913,  and  1914.  This,  to  all  appearances,  is 
substantial  evidence  of  a  greatly  increased  stability  or 
permanence  in  immigration  under  the  quasi-restrictive 
policy  represented  by  the  quota  limit  law,  although,  of 
course,  it  can  not  be  said  that  the  law  is  the  only  cause 
that  contributed  to  that  end. 

Disregarding  the  nonimmigrant  and  nonemigrant  classes 
and  considering  immigrant  and  emigrant  aliens  only,  which 
means  those  coming  for  permanent  residence  here  or  de- 
parting for  permanent  residence  abroad,  the  record  dis- 
closed by  the  table  below  is  even  more  interesting  and 


164 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


a 

Ch  cm 
H  05 


t>.  CO  05  lO  CO  CO  CD  O  1— I  00  lO  O 

'^^'^^'^  O  00  co^  CM^     Oi^ tq^  lO 

of  Co"  (m"  oT  O"  >0  CO  oo""  p"  co"^ 

O  rti  T-H  ^  O  T-H  CO  lO  (N  "-H  ,-H  05 

lO  00  IC^OOt^        rH  (N 


00  (N  00 

(M  05  T-H 
00^  CO  Tti^ 

^  O  OO 
Tfi  CO 


lOfN-^iOTttt^OSOO^C^I 
>-H05<MOt^OI^CDC0c0 

(N  (M^  05^  00^    00^  co^  (M^  (^^^  o_ 

OO"      '-H  CO"  CO  CO"  CO'~  00'~ 

i-lr-<r-lC000'*TtlO5^(M 

iOCOCOcOCOC^i-ii-i(NTji 


CD 


C3 


>0  Q 

to  05  00 

iq^Oi^ 
oTTt^tC 

r-H  t>.  t>. 


OiOTtHI^QiMC^COOJt^ 
TtiCOCOcOO^OOOO"^ 
iq^     1>-^  Tt^^  r-i     »-H^  co„  1>.^  l>.^ 

(m"  (n  co" o"  o~ i-h"    oo"  cn  oT 

ClGOOCOOOr-H000505CO 


d 

bD 

a 


f3§^ 

O^OO^"^^ 

CT)  (N  O 
CO  (N  (N 


^C^OOOrHutit^iftKMiO 
CDCOOSCOt^COt^OOOli— I 
tO?5r-iCOOI^<MiOtOCO 


tOCOOOCOTtiOiCO'rt^CO 
05C0OOO(MC0CiC^ 


(N  CO  CO  CO  r-H 


1-1  (N 


^  Tt<  CO  to 
CO  00  00 
O  CO  to  !>. 

Tfi  CO  (N  (N 


CO  (N  CO  CO 
1— I      CO  to 

CO  CO  T-H  05 


00  (M  O  05 
^  ^  to  00 

i>roo'~^'~(© 

TtH  Oi  00  !>. 
C<1  I 


totot>.  Q  to  r>.  r-i  Ttt  00  r>.  CO  ^  CO 

05  CO  CO  O  to  (N  00  ^  Tfi      to  (M  J>. 

C0„(N,O^  CO^rH^(N^O_(N^l^^OO^OO^O_to_^ 

TjT  TtT  00  Q  tCtC  co"     co"  <N  ^ 

(M  rt"  05  «  T-t  (M  O  CO  CO  CO CO  (M 

Oi  05  r-H  O  O CO  CO  (M  (M  CO 


to  Oi  !>. 

(N  CO 

00  ^ 


COCOtOi— tTt^(M'?t<tOO^tO 
r-HOOCOO-^CMt^COOOt^ 
l>.^  Ol  CO^  CO„  to^  Ol  Tt<^  (M^  00^  uo 

i-T  00  oT  tjh"  tC    I  -  ^  to" 

tOt^C^OOOcOCOOOJOJ 


O  CO  o 

!>.  00 
00  to 


l:^(M(MOOC>COOO(M'-i 
OOt^05000c50^COQ 

tO^^t-H^OO  T}H^t^^00^Tt^^CO^'-<,Ci, 

00"^  00"^  h-"  00"  co"  00"  to"  o"  T-T  o" 

t>.C0a)r-<?5O5O5t-irt<C0 
0000'-i(MCOCS(Nt-i,-it*4 


CO  to  CO  (M 

CO  o  o  o 

^^tO^TjH^CO^ 

oo'ci  co'oT 

CO  !>.  !>. 
05       CO  00 


to  Oil^  CO 


(M  to  rH  OS 

(N  to  05  00 
00  CO  to  !>. 


i 

I 

(U 

>> 

o 


00  05  o 

S  S  05 


i-i<Meo'^tocot>.ooo50 

05O5O5050505020505O5 


r2      ^  (M  CO  Tt< 

05  01  01  05 


EMERGENCY  QUOTA  LEGISLATION,  1921-1924  165 

significant.  This  is  especially  true  with  reference  to  the 
record  of  the  last  five  years  of  the  period  which  follows: 


Year 

Immigrant  Al 

iens 

Emigrant  Aliens 

1920  .... 

430,001 

288,315 

1921  .... 

805,228 

247,718 

1922  .... 

309,556 

198,712 

1923  .... 

522,919 

81,450 

1924  .... 

706,896 

76,789 

Since 

1899  all  aliens  admitted  into 

the  United  States 

have  been  classified  by  the  Government  under  the  head 
of  "races  or  peoples,"  as  well  as  by  the  country  of  origin, 
although  for  quota  purposes,  viz.,  since  1921,  place  of  birth 
controls  regardless  of  race.  Thus,  an  Englishman  is  counted 
as  such  under  the  head  of  ''races  or  peoples"  whether  he 
comes  from  England,  Canada,  or  China.  The  aliens  ad- 
mitted from  Turkey  in  Asia  during  the  fiscal  year  1923 
included  only  158  persons  of  the  Turkish  race  compared 
with  658  Armenians,  631  Syrians,  417  Hebrews,  179  Greeks, 
and  140  of  various  other  races  or  peoples.  Since  what  is 
true  of  Turkey  in  this  case  is  also  true  in  some  degree  of 
every  other  country  from  which  immigrants  come,  such  a 
classification  has  great  value.  The  number  of  immigrant 
ahens  of  the  various  races  or  peoples  admitted  during 
the  fiscal  years  1914,  1921  and  1924  is  shown  in  the  follow- 
ing table: 


Table  11. — Immigrant  Aliens  Admitted  to  the  United  States  During 
THE  Fiscal  Years  Ended  June  30,  1914,  1921,  and  1924,  by  Races  or 
Peoples 


Fiscal  year 

Race  or  People 

1923-24 

1920-21 

1913-14 

12,243 

9,873 

8,447 

Armenian   

2,940 

10,212 

7,785 

Bohemian  and  Moravian  (Czech)   

6,869 

1,743 

9,928 

Bulgarian,  Serbian,  and  Montenegrin   

2,482 

7,700 

15,084 

Chinese   

4,670 

4,017 

2,354 

Croatian  and  Slovenian   

4,137 

11,035 

37,284 

Cuban   

1,412 

1,523 

3.539 

Dalmatian,  Bosnian,  and  Herzegovinian   

295 

930 

5,149 

166  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


Table  11. — Immigrant  Aliens  Admitted  to  the  United  States  Durin(i 
THE  Fiscal  Years  Ended  June  30,  1914,  1921,  and  1924,  by  Races  of 
Peoples. — (Continued.) 


Kace  or  People 

Fiscal  year 

ly2d-24 

1920-21 

1913-14  ' 

7,840 

12,813 

12,566 

154 

353 

172 

93,939 

54,627 

51,746  ^ 

3,975 

4,233 

12305  1 

48,632 

24^122 

18  ,166  i 

95^627 

24^168 

79371 

5^252 

31^828 

45  381  « 

49,989 

119,036 

138,051 

42^364 

39'056 

33398  ' 

11,576 

27^459 

44302 

47^633 

195^037 

251^612 

8,481 

7^531 

8^941 

122 

61 

152 

1,991 

829 

21,584 

7,446 

9,377 

44,538 

87,648 

29,603 

13^089 

12 

13 

1 

T>_,1  •  U 

19,371 

21,146 

122,657 

3,892 

18*856 

9]647 

1,727 

5^925 

24,070 

9,531 

2387 

44',957 

2,356 

958 

36,727 

Scandinavian     (Norwegians,     Danes,  and 

40,978 

25,812 

36,053 

61,327 

24,649 

18,997 

Slovak   

5,523 

35,047 

25319 

3,664 

27,448 

11,064 

Spanish  American  

3,065 

3,325 

1,544 

1,595 

5,105 

9,023 

Turkish   

355 

353 

2,693 

Welsh   

2,635 

1,748 

2,558 

2,211 

1,553 

1,396 

Other  peoples   

937 

3,237 

3,830 

Total   

706,896 

805,228 

1,218,480 

The  next  table  shows  the  same  data  classified  according 
to  the  races  or  peoples  principally  indigenous  to  specified 
parts  of  Europe  and  the  Near  East,  together  with  Mexicans 
and  all  others,  the  latter  including  oriental  peoples,  Cubans, 
Spanish  Americans,  West  Indians,  and  others. 


EMERGENCY  QUOTA  LEGISLATION,  1921-1924  167 


Table  12. — Immigrant  Aliens  Admitted  by  Principal  Races  or  Peoples 
IN  Fiscal  Years  Specified 


Race  or  people 

Number  admitted 

Per  cent  of  total 

1923-24 

1920-21 

1913-14 

1923-24 

1920-21 

1913-14 

Northern  and  west- 
ern Europe  

Southern  and  east- 
ern   Europe  and 
Turkey  

393,342 

192,599 
87,648 
33,307 

206,995 

537,144 
29,603 
31,486 

253,855 

921,160 
13,089 
30,376 

55.7 

27.2 
12.4 
4.7 

25.7 

66.7 
3.7 
3.9 

20.8 

75.6 
1.1 
2.5 

Total   

706,896 

805,228 

1,218,480 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

This  table  brings  out  the  interesting  fact  that  the  pro- 
,  portion  of  northern  and  western  European  peoples  in  our 
immigration  increased  from  20.8  per  cent  of  the  whole  in 
1913-14  to  55.7  per  cent  in  the  fiscal  year  1924  and  that 
the  proportion  of  southern  and  eastern  European  peoples 
j  decreased  from  75.6  per  cent  of  the  whole  in  1913-14  to  only 
I  27.2  per  cent  in  1923-24.    It  will  also  be  noted  that  as 
between  the  two  years  named  there  was  a  numerical  in- 
crease of  nearly  140,000  in  the  first  group  and  a  decrease 
'  of  728,561  in  the  second.   It  is  also  interesting  to  note  that 
immigrants  of  the  Mexican  race  increased  from  an  insignifi- 
cant proportion  of  the  whole  in  1913-14  to  12.4  per  cent  in 
the  fiscal  year,  1923-24,  the  numerical  increase  being  from 
I  13,089  to  87,648,  a  number  equal  to  about  45  per  cent  of  the 
year's  total  immigration  of  southern  and  eastern  European 
I  peoples.   The  proportion  of  '^all  others"  also  increased  from 
j  2.5  per  cent  to  4.7  per  cent  between  the  two  years  under 
consideration,  but  there  was  a  small  numerical  increase  in 
this  group. 

!  Among  the  many  changes  that  resulted  from  the  opera- 
I  tion  of  the  per  centum  limit  law  was  the  steady  and  very 
1  considerable  increase  in  the  proportion  of  English-speak- 
'\  ing  peoples  among  arriving  aliens,  as  shown  in  the  following 
\table: 


16^  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


Table  13. — Immigrant  Auens  of  the  English  and  Non-English  Speak 
iNG  Races  Admitted,  During  the  Fiscal  Yrars  Specified 


J?  ibcdi  year 
(ended  June  30) 

admitted 

H  n  rpl  1  o  r» 
iLngllbll 

speaking  * 

Non- 
English 
speaking 

Per  cent  of  total 

English 

Non- 
English 

1914   

1,218,480 

107,199 

1,111,281 

8.8 

91.2 

1921   

805,228 

120,080 

685,148 

14.9 

85.1 

1922   

309,556 

64,172 

245,384 

20.7 

79.3 

1923   

522,919 

131,159 

391,760 

25.1 

74.9 

1924   

706,896 

200,265 

506,631, 

28.3 

71.7 

*  English,  Irish,  Scotch,  and  Welsh  races. 


The  immigration  record  of  the  fiscal  year  1914  was  fairly 
typical  in  many  respects  of  like  records  for  a  generation  I 
prior  to  the  World  War.  In  that  year  only  8.8  per  cent 
of  our  immigration  was  of  the  four  English  speaking 
peoples — English,  Irish,  Scotch,  and  Welsh — and  the  total 
number  admitted  was  only  107,199.  In  the  fiscal  year, 
1923-24,  however,  the  number  admitted  was  200,265,  nearlyi 
twice  as  great  as  in  1913-14,  and  they  constituted  28.3  peri 
cent  of  the  total  immigration.  In  the  same  fiscal  years,  the 
number  of  non-English-speaking  peoples  decreased  from 
1,111,281  to  506,631,  and  their  proportion  in  the  whole 
immigration  fell  from  91.2  to  71.7  per  cent.  Putting  it  in 
another  way,  in  1913-14  the  number  of  non-English-speak- 
ing peoples  admitted  was  more  than  1,000,000  in  excess  of 
the  peoples  whose  customary  language  was  our  own,  but 
in  1923-24  this  difference  was  reduced  to  about  300,000. 
From  this  it  is  evident  that  the  emergency  quota  legisla- 
tion did  much  good  and,  therefore,  justified  the  continua-l 
tion  of  a  quota  limitation. 

The  facts  set  forth  in  this  chapter  will  be  of  great  in- 
terest to  us  when  we  consider  the  quota  provisions  in  the 
Act  of  1924,  the  purpose  of  which  is  to  materially  lessen  the  ; 
tide  of  immigration  from  the  so-called  '^new"  sources,  with-  i 
out  unduly  interfering  with  the  normal  movement  of  north 
west  European  peoples  into  the  United  States.  That  the 
Act  of  May  19,  1921  accomplished  this  to  some  extent  is  evi- 
dent from  the  above  facts,  and  from  it  came  the  solution  to 
the  quota  problem  as  worked  out  in  the  Act  of  1924. 


CHAPTER  VII 
The  Immigration  Act  of  1924 

President  Coolidge's  recommendations  on  Immigration — History  of  the 
fohnson  Bill — Provisions  of  the  new  law — Non-immigrant  classes — Non- 
g[Uota  immigrants — The  case  for  aliens  now  here  without  their  immediate 
families — Alien  wives  of  American  citizens — Travel  permits  for  aliens  now 
here — Provisions  concerning  ministers,  professors  and  students — The  quota 
provisions — Preferences  within  the  quotas — Provisions  concerning  immi- 
gration visas — Penal  provisions — Provisions  to  check  illegal  entry  of  immi- 
grants as  seamen — Burden  of  proof  on  the  alien — This  act  is  additional 
legislation  on  immigration — Sources  of  opposition. 

The  numerical  restrictions  provided  for  in  the  3  per  cent 
Act  of  May  19,  1921  were  drastic,  yet  the  emergency  de- 
manded drastic  action.  The  law  itself  worked  many  hard- 
ships for  it  was  not  perfect.  Indeed,  it  was  never  at  any 
time  considered  permanent  legislation.  Its  life  was  ex- 
tended for  two  years  by  the  Act  of  May  11,  1922  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  giving  Congress  time  to  work  out  more 
permanent  legislation.  The  quota  law  based  on  the  census 
of  1910  was  not  based  on  historical  facts,  and,  therefore, 
at  best,  was.^ajiiakeshift  affair.  However,  a  quota  limita- 
tion had  proved  to  be  the  most  effective  method  of  restrict- 
ing immigration  yet  devised  and  at  no  time  was  the  aban-  , 
donment  of  such  a  plan  contemplated.  It  had  done  much ; 
good  and  within  a  short  time  we  began  to  learn  many 
lessons  which  were  to  be  invaluable  when  the  time  came 
to  write  a  law  that  would  be  numerically  restrictive,  selec- 
tive and  based  on  historical  facts. 

In  his  first  annual  message  to  Congress  on  December 
6,  1923  President  Coolidge  dealt  with  the  immigration  ques- 
tion in  a  constructive  manner.  He  pointed  Congress  in 
the  right  direction  when  he  stated  that  ''American  institu- 

169 


170  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


tions  rest  solely  on  good  citizenship.    They  were  created  It 
by  people  who  had  a  background  of  self-government.   Newij  ( 
arrivals  should  be  limited  to  our  capacity  to  absorb  them  . 
into  the  ranks  of  good  citizenship.   America  must  be  kept  I 
American.    For  this  purpose,  it  is  necessary  to  continue 
a  policy  of  restricted  immigration.    It  would  be  well  to  ' 
make  such  immigration  of  a  selective  nature  with  some 
inspection  at  the  source,  and  based  either  on  a  prior  census 
or  upon  the  record  of  naturalization.   Either  method  would 
insure  the  admission  of  those  with  the  largest  capacity  and  ,. 
best  intention  of  becoming  citizens.    I  am  convinced  that  | 
our  present  economic  and  social  conditions  warrant  a  limita- 
tion of  those  to  be  admitted.    We  should  find  additional 
safety  in  a  law  requiring  the  immediate  registration  of  all 
aliens.    Those  who  do  not  want  to  be  partakers  of  the  ill 
American  spirit  ought  not  to  settle  in  America." 

Since  few  subjects  can  stir  more  argument,  more  dif- 
ferences of  opinion,  than  immigration,  since  nothing  breeds 
so  much  trouble  as  racial  differences,  it  was  inevitable  that 
the  drafting  of  a  bill  that  would  carry  out  the  principles 
of  restricted  immigration  in  a  constructive  manner  as  out-  j 
lined  by  the  President  in  his  message  would  be  full  of  diffi- 
culties.   The  House  and  Senate  Committees  on  Immigra- 
tion and  Naturalization  had  studied  the  problem  during  ; 
the  two  years  of  the  Sixty-seventh  Congress.    The  con- 
clusions of  the  House  Committee  were  set  forth  in  a  report  : 
to  the  House  of  Representatives  on  February  15,  1923.^  ' 
In  the  congestion  of  legislation  nothing  was  done  before  '! 
Congress  adjourned  in  March.    The  intervening  months. ' 
to  December,  when  Congress  again  assembled,  gave  an  | 
opportunity  for  public  opinion  to  crystallize  and  assert  it- 
self. 

Before  January  20,  1924,  fifty  proposals  dealing  with  the  j 
subject  of  immigration  had  been  presented  in  Congress, 
and  many  others  were  introduced  after  that  date,  among 
which  were  twenty  or  more  well-defined  plans  for  restrict  | 
tion.   However,  from  the  time  Congress  assembled  until  its 

*  Report  No.  1621,  House  of  Representatives,  67th  Congress,  4th  seasion. 


THE  IMMIGRATION  ACT  OF  1924  171 


ienactment  into  law  the  nation  as  a  whole  was  concerned 
lonly  with  the  Johnson  bill,  now  known  as  the  'Immigration 
lAct  of  1924."  This  measure  was  drafted  by  the  House 
[Committee  and  contained  its  previous  recommendations, 
tplus  various  perfecting  amendments.  Its  principal  features 
lare:  (1)  it  preserves  the  basic  immigration  law  of  1917; 
(2)  it  contains  the  principle  of  numerical  limitation  as  in-_ 
augurated  in  the  Act  of  May  19,  1921;  (3)  it  changes  the 
[quota  basis  from  the  census  of  1910  to  the  census  of  1890; 
(4)  it  reduces  the  quota  admissible  in  any  one  year  from 
3  to  2  per  cent;  (5)  it  provides  a  method  of  selection  of 
immigrants  at  the  source  rather  than  to  permit  them  to 
come  to  this  country  and  land  at  the  immigration  stations 
without  previous  inspection;  (6)  it  reduces  the  classes  of 
exempted  aliens;  (7)  it  places  the  burden  of  proof  on  the 
alien  to  show  that  he  is  admissible  under  the  immigration 
laws  rather  than  upon  the  United  States  to  show  that  he 
is  not  admissible;  and  (8)  it  provides  for  the  exclusion 
of  those  who  desire  to  enter  as  immigrants  who  are  not 

I  eligible  to  become  naturalized  citizens  under  our  natural i  7a- 

|i  tion  laws. 

'  The  key  to  the  law  lies  in  an  understanding  of  tho  defini- 
V  tion  of  immigrants.  The  Act  of  1921  dealt  with  ihe  defini- 
tion of  aliens,  whereas  this  new  law  deals  with  the  defini- 
tion of  'immigrants.  All  persons  who  may  come  to  the 
United  States  are  considered  immigrants  except  those  who 
are  exempted  in  the  definition  of  immigrants.  '"'When  used 
in  this  Act  the  term  'immigrant'  means  any  alien  departing 
from  any  place  outside  the  United  States  destined  for  the 
United  States,  except  (1)  a  government  official,  his  family, 
attendants,  servants,  and  employees,  (2)  an  alien  visiting 
the  United  States  temporarily  as  a  tourist  or  temporarily 
for  business  or  pleasure,  (3)  an  alien  in  continuous  transit 
through  the  United  States,  (4)  an  alien  lawfully  admitted 
to  the  United  States  who  later  goes  in  transit  from  one 
part  of  the  United  States  to  another  through  foreign  con- 
tiguous territory,  (5)  a  bona  fide  alien  seaman  serving  as 
such  on  a  vessel  arriving  at  a  port  of  the  United  States  and 


172 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


seeking  to  enter  temporarily  the  United  States  solely  in 
pursuit  of  his  calling  as  a  seaman,  and  (6)  an  alien  entitled 
to  enter  the  United  States  solely  to  carry  on  trade  under 
and  in  pursuance  of  the  provisions  of  a  present  existing 
treaty  of  commerce  and  navigation."  -  While  these  ex- 
empted classes  are  composed  of  aliens  they  are  not  con- 
sidered immigrants,  and  therefore  they  are  not  within  the 
scope  of  the  new  law. 

The  law  then  divides  all  immigrants  into  two  classes, 
quota  immigrants  and  non-quota  immigrants.  Both  classes 
are  required  to  secure  certificates,  but  only  those  in  the 
quota  class  are  counted  to  fill  the  quotas  which  are  allotted 
to  the  various  countries. 

Non-quota  immigrants  include,^  as  stated  in  section  4: 
"(a)  An  immigrant  who  is  the  unmarried  child  under 
eighteen  years  of  age,  or  the  wife,  of  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States  who  resides  therein  at  the  time  of  the  filing  of  the 
petition  required  under  section  9;  (b)  an  immigrant  pre- 
\'i(.ii^l3'  lawfully  admitted  to  the  United  States,  who  is  re- 
turning from  a  temporary  visit  abroad;  (c)  an  immigrant 
ho  was  born  in  the  Duiiunion  of  Canada,  Newfoundland, 
the  Repub]i(^  nf  Mexico,  the  Republic  of  Cuba,  the  Republic 
of  Haiti,  the  Dominican  Republic,  the /Canal  Zone,  or  an 


wife,  and  his  unmarried  children  unucr  eighiC.?*!  years  of> 
age,  if  accompanying  or  following  to  join  hnu;  (d)  an  iiT^.^ni-  ; 
grant  who  continuously  for  at  least  two  years  iminediatt  / 
preceding  the  time  of  application  for  admission  to  the 
United  States  has  been,  and  who  seeks  to  enter  the  United 

^Section  3  of  the  Act. 

^  The  Act  of  May  26,  1926,  relating  to  ahen  veterans  of  the  armed  forces 
of  the  United  States  during  the  period  of  the  World  War  is  of  wide  appli- 
cation. Under  it  provision  is  made  for  the  admission  of  such  veterans  not 
only  without  regard  to  the  quota  but  also  without  regard  to  many  of  the 
general  provisions  of  the  law.  In  addition,  their  wives  and  minor  children 
accompanying  or  following  to  join  them  within  six  months  are  exempted 
from  the  quota.  According  to  the  Commissioner-General  of  Immigration 
in  his  report  for  1926  "there  were  in  1924  from  12,000  to  15,000  such  veterans 
in  Italy  alone.  It  is  believed  that  this  number  represents  the  largest  group  | 
in  any  one  country.  It  will  enable  many  expatriated  naturalized  American 
citizens  to  return,  with  the  families  they  have  acquired  abroad,  and  will, 
no  doubt,  prove  an  important  exception  to  the  quota  law"  (page  21). 


independent  country  of  Cen..  :  ' 


THE  IMMIGRATION  ACT  OF  1924 


173 


States  solely  for  the  purpose  of,  carrying  on  the  vocation 
of  minister  of  any  religious  denomination,  or  professor  of  a 
college,  academy,  seminary,  or  university ;  and  his  wife,  and 
his  unmarried  children  under  eighteen  years  of  age,  if 
accompanying  or  following  to  join  him;  or  (e)  an  immi- 
grant who  is  a  bona  fide  student  *  at  least  fifteen  years  of 
age  and  who  seeks  to  enter  the  United  States  solely  for 
j  the  purpose  of  study  at  an  accredited  school,  college,  acad- 
emy, seminary,  or  university,  particularly  designated  byv 
ihim  and  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  which  shall 
.  have  agreed  to  report  to  the  Secretary  of  Labor  the  termina- 
,  tion  of  attendance  of  each  immigrant  student,  and  if  any 
such  institution  of  learning  fails  to  make  such  reports 
promptly  the  approval  shall  be  withdrawn."  ^ 

A  brief  study  of  this  legislation  makes  it  clear  that  the 
■!  Act  is  filled  with  humane  provisions.^  Under  the  Act  of 
1921  a  family  might  arrive  at  a  port  in  the  United  States, 
only  to  find,  as  many  did,  that  the  quota  provisions  neces- 
sitated a  family  division.  This  led  to  many  hardships  and 
much  criticism.  It  was  a  weakness  that  had  to  be  elimi- 
nated. The  Act  of  1924  does  this  by  encouraging  an  immi- 

I  *In  his  report  for  1925  the  Commissioner-General  of  Immigration  recom- 
mended that  "authority  should  be  included  in  Section  15  of  the  act  for  the 
imposition  of  a  bond  to  guarantee  the  maintenance  of  the  exempt  status 

;  of  an  immigrant  student,  where  the  applicant  is  not  believed  to  be  seeking 
admission  in  good  faith,  under  Section  4  (e).  As  the  matter  now  stands, 
the  bureau  finds  itself  compelled  to  refuse  admission  to  many  aliens  apply- 
ing as  immigrant  students,  whom  it  could  properly  admit  as  such  if 
authority  were  expressly  conferred  to  exact  bonds  for  the  maintenance  of 
student  status"  (page  28).  He  repeated  this  recommendation  in  his  1926 
report  (page  23).  The  defect  not  having  been  foreseen,  obviously  should 
be  remedied. 

®In  United  States  of  America,  ex  rel.  Guide  Antonini,  v.  Henry  H.  Cur- 
ran,  Commissioner  of  Immigration  of  the  Port  of  New  York,  Circuit 
Court  of  Appeals,  Second  Circuit;  (see  United  States  Daily  for  November 
29,  1926)  the  court  held  that  an  Italian  student  who  had  been  admitted 
to  college  and  was  a  bona  fide  student  could  not  be  held  subject  to  exclu- 
sion or  deportation  as  an  alien  on  the  ground  that  during  his  studies  he 
gained  his  maintenance  and  tuition  by  self-supporting  labor.  In  Low  Cho 
Oy,  Appellant,  v.  John  D.  Nagle,  Commissioner  of  Immigration  for  the 
Port  of  San  Francisco;  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals,  Ninth  Circuit,  No.  4941, 
it  was  held  that  the  admission  of  a  Chinese  as  a  student  gave  him  the 
I  rifeht  to  bring  his  wife  with  him.    United  States  Daily,  December  4,  1926. 

*In  his  report  for  1925  (page  1)  the  Commissioner-General  of  Immigra- 
tion refers  to  the  immigration  act  of  1924  as  a  "law  with  a  heart." 


174  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


grant  to  bring  his  family  with  him.  Under  the  plan  for  the 
issuance  of  immigration  visas  an  immigrant  can  learn  be- 
fore leaving  his  home  if  all  his  family  and  the  relatives 
who  desire  to  accompany  him  can  enter  the  United  States 
with  him  within  the  quotaJ 

The  opponents  of  the  bill  tried,  but  in  vain,  to  amend  it 
so  as  to  permit  all  children,  parents,  and  other  relatives 
to  enter  as  non-quota  immigrants.  The  advocates  of  re- 
striction contended  that  their  purpose  was  to  load  the  law 
down  with  so  many  '^humane"  provisions  as  to  destroy  the 
quota  provisions  indirectly  and  altogether.  Thus,  it  was 
argued,  they  would  have  accomplished  indirectly  what 
they  failed  to  do  directly. 

In  one  particular,  however,  the  law  may  be  said  to 
create  a  serious  hardship,  although  to  what  extent  it  is 
difficult  to  say.  Under  the  bill  as  first  drafted  in  the  report 
of  February  15,  1923,  an  alien  already  here,  who  had  taken 
out  his  first  papers  and  intended  to  become  fully  natural- 
ized, could  bring  in  his  wife  and  minor  children  as  non- 
quota immigrants.  Under  the  law  as  finally  enacted,  he 
cannot  do  so,  and,  therefore,  they  must  enter  as  quota  immi- 
grants, if  they  get  here.  Investigations  showed  that  many 
ahens  now  here  could  and  should  have  brought  their  families 

'In  his  annual  report  for  1926  the  Secretary  of  Labor  recommended  to 
Congress  that  a  provision  be  added  to  the  immigration  laws  requiring  an 
alien  head  of  family  seeking  visa  for  permanent  residence  in  the  United 
States  to  express  intention  regarding  the  future  residence  of  the  family, 
and  in  the  event  that  he  expects  later  to  have  the  family  join  him  in  the 
United  States,  each  member  of  the  family  would  be  required  to  submit  to 
preliminary  examination  to  determine  admissibility  and  to  have  visas 
issued  at  the  same  time  that  his  own  arrangements  are  made.  Should 
dependent  members  of  that  family  be  found  inadmissible,  the  entire  family 
would  then  be  fully  cognizant  of  the  fact  that  such  members  could  never 
be  admitted  to  the  United  States, 

Since  the  life  of  an  immigrant  visa  is  now  limited  to  four  months,  Sec- 
retary Davis  also  recommended  that  authority  be  vested  in  an  adminis- 
trative officer  to  extend  the  validity  of  immigration  visas  so  issued  to 
members  of  families  whose  heads  are  in  the  United  States  for  a  reason- 
able length  of  time.  It  tiu-  life  of  a  ''family"  visa  were  made  one  year, 
and  some  arrangement  perfected  whereby  it  could  be  extended  upon  ap- 
propriate showing  of  cause,  the  separation  of  families  through  immigration 
of  the  future  could  be  practically  eliminated.  The  visas  thus  issued  would, 
of  course,  carry  the  quota  allotn.ents  in  like  manner  as  now  provided  by 
law.   Pages  110-111. 


THE  IMMIGRATION  ACT  OF  1924  175 


With  them,  although  some  came  here  to  work  and  save 
3nough  to  send  for  them  later.  While  Congress  foresaw 
to  some  extent  the  situation  which  has  resulted  for  immi- 
grants now  here  without  their  families,  yet  it  feared  a  loop- 
hole might  result  that  would  let  in  too  many  immigrants. 
However,  as  everything  is  to  be  gained  and  nothing  lost 
from  a  united  family  life.  Congress  may  reconsider  and 
permit  aliens  now  in  the  United  States  to  bring  in  their 
wives  and  minor  children  as  non-quota  immigrants.^  The 
present  state  of  public  opinion  would  seem  to  justify  such 
a  change  in  the  law.  However,  it  would  be  necessary  to 
put  a  time  limit  when  such  preferences  would  have  to 
end. 

On  November  8,  1924  Secretary  of  Labor  Davis  ex- 
pressed his  opinion  on  this  point  as  follows :  ^'I  would  pro- 
vide for  preference  in  admission  to  this  country  for  the 
families  of  aliens  already  in  the  United  States.  Humanity 
i  demands  that  our  immigration  law  shall  not  operate  to 
keep  husband  and  wife,  brothers  and  sisters,  or  parents 
and  children  apart  wherever  it  is  possible  to  bring  them  to- 
gether. There  is  an  economic  reason,  too,  for  uniting  the 
families  of  immigrants.  For,  if  the  alien  is  unable  to  bring 
'  his  family  to  his  new  country,  he  is  forced  to  support  it 
abroad  with  the  wages  he  earns  in  America.  If  he  is 
enabled  to  bring  them  here,  the  buying  power  of  his  Ameri- 
can wages  goes  to  help  American  business."  ^ 

In  his  annual  message  to  Congress,  December  3,  1924 
President  Coolidge  stated:  ''I  should  like  to  see  the  ad- 
ministrative features  of  this  (the  immigration)  law  rendered 
a  little  more  humane  for  the  purpose  of  permitting  those 
already  here  a  greater  latitude  in  securing  admission  of 
members  of  their  own  families.  But  I  believe  this  law  in 
principle  is  necessary  and  sound  and  destined  to  increase 

'Important  debates  on  the  admission  of  relatives  of  aliens  now  in  the 
United  States  took  place  in  the  Senate  on  December  14,  1926,  and  in  the 
House,  Januaiy  25,  1927.  For  the  full  text  of  these  debates  see  Con- 
gressional Record,  69th  Congress,  2d  Session,  pages  407-414  and  2281  to 
2284. 

j  "In  his  annual  report  for  1926  (page  110)  the  Secretary  of  Labor  repeated 
I  these  recommendations. 


176 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


greatly  the  public  welfare.  We  must  maintain  our  own  I 
economic  position,  we  must  defend  our  own  national ! 
integrity." 

In  his  report  for  1925  the  Commissioner-General  of  Im-  1 
migration  stated:  ''It  is  my  recommendation  that  'non-  i 
quota  immigrant'  status  should  be  extended  to  the  parents  \ 
of  citizens,  and  further  that  the  age  limit  for  granting  non- 
quota visas  to  the  unmarried  children  of  citizens  should  be  | 
raised  from  18  to  21  years,  thus  eliminating  two  preference  | 
classes — the  parents  and  the  unmarried  children,  between  \ 
the  ages  of  18  and  21  years,  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  ! 
— and  placing  these  two  classes  among  the  non-quota  j 
classes.    This  will  expedite  the  admission  of  parents  and 
children  of  American  citizens  and  the  bureau  sees  no  reason  ■ 
why  we  should  delay  what  is  so  clearly  an  act  of  mercy."^^ 
He  repeated  virtually  the  same  recommendation  in  his  ■ 
report  for  1926.1^  ' 

By  the  Act  of  September  22,  1922,  it  was  provided,  'That 
any  woman  who  marries  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  after  I 
the  passage  of  this  act,  or  any  woman  whose  husband  is 
naturalized  after  the  passage  of  this  act,  shall  not  become 
a  citizen  of  the  United  States  by  reason  of  such  marriage  : 
or  naturalization;  but,  if  eligible  to  citizenship,  she  may  i 
be  naturalized  upon  full  and  complete  compliance  with  all 
the  requirements  of  the  naturalization  laws,  with  the  fol- 
lowing exceptions:  ' 

(a)  No  declaration  of  intention  shall  be  required. 

(b)  In  lieu  of  the  five-year  period  of  residence  within 
the  State  or  Territory  where  the  n'aturalization  court  is 
held,  she  shall  have  resided  continuously  within  the  United  (j 
States,  Hawaii,  Alaska,  or  Porto  Rico,  for  at  least  one  year  j 
immediately  preceding  the  filing  of  the  petition."    This  I 
simply  means  that  when  an  alien  girl  marries  an  American 
citizen  she  docs  not  by  that  marriage  ceremony  become  an 
American  citizen.   Up  to  the  time  of  this  act  she  ipso  facto  ' 
became  an  American  citizen  and  could  come  in  as  such. 


""Page  28. 


"Page  23. 


I  THE  IMMIGRATION  ACT  OF  1924  177 

Since  the  passage  of  the  Act  of  September  22,  1922,  we  have 
had  cases  where  wives  of  American  citizens,  seeking  admis- 
sion into  the  United  States,  could  not  come  in  because  the 
quota  of  their  nationality  was  filled.  Under  the  Act  of 
1924  such  wives  of  American  citizens  may  enter  as  non- 
quota imimigrants.^-  This  is  a  humane  provision  despite  the 
fact  that  frequently  a  delay  of  at  least  three  months  is 
necessary  to  secure  the  proper  papers  to  admit  her  as  a 
non-quota  immigrant. 

Another  humane  provision  is  the  one  which  permits  an 
alien  now  in  this  country  to  go  out  on  a  temporary  visit 
and  return  exempt  from  the  quota  provisions.  Let  us 
assume  that  the  immigrant  has  taken  out  his  first  papers 
and  has  foresworn  allegiance  to  his  mother  country.  He 
has  not  taken  on  complete  allegiance  to  the  United  States. 
In  that  event  he  cannot  get  a  passport  from  us  to  the  coun- 
try from  which  he  came  nor  can  be  get  a  passport  from  the 
country  he  left.  The  new  law  provides  that  he  be  given  a 
kind  of  travel  permit  which  simply  shows  that  he  travels 
with  the  intention  of  returning  to  the  United  States.  How- 
ever, it  does  not  relieve  him  from  being  debarred  on  his 
return  if  he  has  contracted  any  disease  or  subjected  himself 
to  deportation  under  the  Burnett  Law.^^  This  provision, 
enacted  for  the  benefit  of  aliens  now  in  the  United  States, 
permits  them  to  return  to  their  native  land,  yet  it  prohibits 

"In  his  report  for  1925  the  Commissioner-General  of  Immigration  recom- 
mended that  "Section  4(a)  of  the  act  should  be  amended  to  provide  that 
a  v'  f  who  is  an  American  citizen,  and  resides  in  the  United  States,  may 
petition  for  the  issuance  of  a  non-quota  immigration  v^isa  to  her  alien 
husband.  As  it  now  stands,  the  law  permits  such  a  citizen  wife  to  petition 
only  for  preference  for  her  husband.  This  subdivision  of  Section  4  should 
also  be  amended  to  provide  that  either  a  husband  or  wife  who  is  a  citizen 
of  the  United  States  may  petition  for  the  issuance  of  non-quota  immigra- 
tion visas  to  the  children  of  either  alien  spouse"  (page  28).  He  repeated 
virtually  the  same  recommendations  in  his  report  for  1926  (page  23). 

"In  his  report  for  1926  the  Commissioner-General  of  Immigration  stated: 
"A  permit  to  reenter  the  United  States,  once  issued  to  an  alien  resident, 
j-'hould  be  made  prima  facie  evidence  of  his  right  to  return,  barring  fraud 
or  disease.  To  give  an  alien  a  permit  to  reenter,  which  he  has  a  right 
to  believe  entitled  him  to  readmission,  and  then  to  bar  him  because  of 
some  requirement,  which  he  has  previously  met  and  passed,  is  an  injustice 
of  which  no  government  should  be  guilty"  (page  22). 


178  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


additional  ones  from  coming  except  under  the  quota.  It 
will  be  of  most  benefit  to  the  aliens  now  here  from  Southern 
Europe,  the  so-called  new  immigration,  for  these  are  the 
ones  who  for  the  most  part  desire  to  return  home  to  visit 
their  families  and  friends.  Experience  should  prove  this 
to  be  a  beneficial  provision  instead  of  a  loophole  as  feared  j 
by  some.  If  properly  enforced  it  will  prove  the  former, 
otherwise  the  latter. 

Concerning  this  permit  to  enter  the  United  States  after 
a  temporary  absence,  Section  10  states: 

"(a)  Any  alien  about  to  depart  temporarily  from  the 
United  States  may  make  application  to  the  Commissioner- 
General  for  a  permit  to  reenter  the  United  States,  stating 
the  length  of  his  intended  absence,  and  the  reasons  there- 
for. Such  application  shall  be  made  under  oath  .  .  .  and 
shall  be  accompanied  by  two  copies  of  the  applicant's 
photograph. 

(b)  If  the  Commissioner-General  finds  that  the  alien 
has  been  legally  admitted  to  the  United  States,  and  that 
the  application  is  made  in  good  faith,  he  shall,  with  the 
approval  of  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  issue  the  permit,  speci- 
fying therein  the  length  of  time,  not  exceeding  one  year, 
during  which  it  shall  be  valid.  The  permit  shall  be  in 
such  form  as  shall  be  by  regulations  prescribed  and  shall 

"During  the  fiscal  year  1926  alien  residents  of  the  United  States  made 
119,254  applications  for  permits  to  reenter  this  country  after  a  temporary 
visit  abroad,  which  was  an  increase  of  29,254  over  the  preceding  year.  Of 
the  119,254  applications  received,  104,666  return  permits  were  issued  and 
6,636  were  refused,  the  refusals  being  mainly  for  failure  on  the  part  of  the 
applicant  to  establish  legal  entry  into  the  United  States.  4,034  extensions 
were  granted  on  permits  already  issued.  Report  of  Commissioner-General 
of  Immigration,  page  11. 

"In  Francesco  Lidennici,  Severio  Desiderio,  Giovanni  Candioti  and 
Nicolo  Finaro  v.  James  J.  Davis,  Secretary  of  Labor,  and  W.  W.  Husband, 
Commissioner  of  Immigration;  Court  of  Appeals,  District  of  Columbia; 
No.  4405;  United  States  Daily,  December  13,  1926,  the  court  held  that  the 
above  Italians,  returning  after  six  months,  were  aliens  who  had  entered 
without  right  and  in  violation  of  the  immigration  statutes.  The  order  of 
deportation  was  affirmed.  The  complainants  alleged  that  it  was  their 
intention  on  departing  from  the  United  States  to  return  to  it,  although 
Lidennici  had  been  in  Italy  about  three  years;  Desiderio,  about  three 
years;  Condioti,  about  nine  years  and  Finaro,  about  eight  years.  Fur- 
thermore, their  re-entry  was  not  made  at  a  specified  port. 


THE  IMMIGRATION  ACT  OF  1924  179 


have  permanently  attached  thereto  the  photograph  of  the 
alien  to  whom  issued,  together  with  such  other  matter  as 
may  be  deemed  necessary  for  the  complete  identification 
of  the  alien. 

(c)  On  good  cause  shown  the  validity  of  the  permit  may 
be  extended  for  such  period  or  periods,  not  exceeding  six 
months  each,  and  under  such  conditions,  as  shall  be  by 
regulations  prescribed. 

(d)  For  the  issuance  of  the  permit,  and  for  each  exten- 
sion thereof,  there  shall  be  paid  a  fee  of  $3.^^ 

(e)  Upon  the  return  of  the  alien  to  the  United  States 
the  permit  shall  be  surrendered  to  the  immigration  officer 
at  the  port  of  inspection. 

(f)  A  permit  issued  under  this  section  shall  have  no 
effect  under  the  immigration  laws,  except  to  show  that  the 
alien  to  whom  it  is  issued  is  returning  from  a  temporary 
visit  abroad;  but  nothing  in  this  section  shall  be  construed 
as  making  such  permit  the  exclusive  means  of  establishing 
that  the  alien  is  so  returning." 

Section  4  (d)  grew  out  of  a  long  contested  case,  decided 
May  26,  1924,  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
which  decision  fixed  the  construction  of  the  immigration 
acts  of  1917  and  1921,  in  respect  to  the  admissibility  of 
the  wives  and  minor  children  of  admitted  immigrants. 
.  Gittel  and  Israel  Gottlieb  were  the  wife  and  four-year-old 
child,  respectively,  of  Solomon  Gottlieb.  Solomon  Gottlieb 
was  a  Jewish  rabbi  who  came  from  Palestine  to  the  United 
States  some  14  months  before  his  wife  and  child  came. 
He  was  duly  admitted  and,  procuring  a  position,  furnished 
support  to  his  family  until  able  to  send  passage  money. 

"For  the  fiscal  year  1926  the  sum  of  $326,100  was  turned  over  to  the 
disbursing  office  of  the  department  for  transmission  to  the  Treasury.  Re- 
port of  the  Commissioner-General  of  Immigration  for  1926,  pag€  11. 

"In  John  P.  Johnson,  U.  S.  Commissioner  of  Immigration,  v.  Cornelius 
F.  Keating,  ex  rel.  Francesco  Tarantino;  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals,  First 
Circuit  (see  United  States  Daily  for  January  15,  1927,  page  7)  the  court 
held  that  the  reentry  permit  or  immigration  visa  is  not  essential  evidence 
of  the  real  status  of  a  non-quota  immigrant  returning  from  a  temporary 
absence  abroad.  The  exclusion  of  Tarantino  on  the  sole  ground  that  he  had 
no  return  permit  or  immigration  visa  was  held  to  be  unjust  and  unrea- 
sonable, the  equity  of  the  case  being  undisputed. 


180 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


On  their  arrival  they  were  excluded  because  the  quota  ^ 
from  Palestine  was  full.  On  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  in  the ' 
District  Court  of  New  York  admission  was  ordered,  where- 
upon an  appeal  was  taken  to  the  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals. 
Judge  Rogers  went  carefully  into  the  case,  examining  the 
effect  of  the  quota  law  of  1921  on  the  basic  law  of  1917. 
The  1917  act  provides  that  ministers  and  religious  teachers 
and  their  legal  wives  and  children  under  16  are  not  subject 
to  the  exclusion  clause  of  that  act;  this  act  not  having  been 
repealed  by  the  act  of  1921,  an  effort  must  be  made  to  con- 
strue the  limitations  of  the  latter  act  so  as  not  to  do  vio- 
lence to  the  act  of  1917.  Rules  for  the  construction  of 
statutes  were  discussed,  one  of  which  was  that  absurd 
results  should  be  avoided  if  possible.  The  conclusion  was 
reached  that  Congress  intended  nothing  by  the  act  of  1921 
that  would  '^create  a  condition  so  unreasonable  and  absurd 
as  to  admit  a  minister  while  at  the  same  time  excluding  the 
members  of  his  family."  The  order  of  the  court  directing 
the  release  of  the  wife  and  child  was  therefore  affirmed-^^ 

KThis  decision  was  made  a  precedent  in  a  number  of  cases 
involving  similar  and  related  conditions;  but  the  Depart- 
ment of  Labor  was  not  satisfied  with  the  ruling  as  a  final 
determination  and  prosecuted  an  appeal  to  the  Supreme 
Court.  Here  it  was  conceded  that  the  laws  of  1917  and 
1921  should  be  held  as  complemental,  the  provisions  of  the 
earlier  act  being  ''still  fully  operative  and  may  be  consid- 
ered as  forming  a  part  of  the  later  act."  However,  the 
framing  of  the  law  was  said  to  be  so  definite  as  not  to 
permit  construction.  The  case  was  concededly  ''one  of 
peculiar  and  distressing  hardships,"  so  that  if  a  favorable 
conclusion  were  possible  it  would  naturally  be  made  use 
of;  but  an  examination  of  the  exceptions  and  qualifications 
made  it  impossible  to  extend  leniency  to  the  case  in  hand, 
the  limited  scope  of  the  exception  relied  upon  "being  plain, 
and  no  amount  of  discussion  could  make  it  plainer."  The 
limitation  being  what  it  was,  any  claim  that  it  would  be 
"absurd  and  unreasonable"  to  bar  wives  and  children  of 


^285  Fed.  295.    Soc  also  supra,  p.  161. 


THE  IMMIGRATION  ACT  OF  1924  181 

admitted  persons  could  not  have  weight,  ''since  the  result 
we  have  stated  necessarily  follows  from  the  plain  words  of 
the  law,  for  which  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  substitute  a 
rule  based  upon  other  notions  of  policy  or  justice." 
If     This  decision  clearly  upheld  the  construction  of  law  given 
'  it  by  the  Department  of  Labor  in  its  original  finding,  and 
exposed  to  the  possibility  of  deportation  a  considerable 
i  number  of  admitted  persons,  wives  and  children  of  immi- 
11  grants  residing  in  this  country,  who  had  been  admitted 
■  in  obedience  to  the  ruling  of  the  courts  below,  but  under 
•  notice  that  an  appeal  had  been  taken.   However,  Congress 
f  in  its  closing  session  on  June  7,  provided  for  the  continued 
i  residence  in  this  country  of  such  persons,  ''approximately 
i ;  8,800  aliens  who  are  now  here  and  about  500  who  are  on 
j  the  ocean."   A  resolution  (H.  J.  Res.  283)  lifting  the  ban 
I  against  certain  groups  of  such  persons  specified  those  here- 
tofore admitted  under  a  construction  of  the  act  of  1921 
"required  by  court  decision."    This  resolution  was  signed 
by  the  President  on  the  same  day.   Under  the  act  of  1924, 
the  wife  and  unmarried  children  under  eighteen  years  of 
age  of  a  minister,  or  a  professor  of  a  college,  etc.,  who  seeks 
to  enter  the  United  States  solely  for  the  purpose  of  carry- 
ing on  his  vocation,  provided  he  has  pursued  the  same  con- 
tinuously for  two  years  immediately  preceding  the  time 
of  his  application  for  admission,  may  accompany  him  or 
follow  to  join  him  later .'^^   The  law  is  now  so  specific  con- 
cerning the  admittance  of  wives  and  children  of  non-quota 
immigrants  that  it  is  difiicult  to  foresee  how  many  problems 
can  arise  under  it. 

The  basis  and  heart  of  the  new  law  are  those  provisions 
concerning  quota  immigrants.  Section  5  states,  "when  used 
in  this  Act  the  term  'quota  immigrant'  means  any  immi- 
grant who  is  not  a  non-quota  immigrant.   An  alien  who  is 

"The  act  of  July  3,  1926,  pertj^ining  to  the  wives  and  children  of  min- 
isters and  professors  who  entered  the  United  States  before  July  1,  1924, 
added  to  the  classes  exempt  from  the  quota.  Under  it,  for  a  period  of 
one  year,  this  class  of  immigrants  may  be  admitted  upon  showing  that 
the  husband  and  father  entered  in  pursuit  of  the  exempt  vocation.  This^^ 
was  in  accord  with  the  recommendation  of  the  Commissioner-General  of 
Immigration  in  his  report  for  1925. 


182  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


not  particularly  specified  in  this  Act  as  a  non-quota  immi 
grant  or  a  non-immigrant  shall  not  be  admitted  as  a  non  ' 
quota  immigrant  or  a  non-immigrant  by  reason  of  rela  ' 
tionship  to  any  individual  who  is  so  specified  or  by  reasor 
of  being  excepted  from  the  operation  of  any  other  law 
regulating  or  forbidding  immigration." 

Section  G  provides  for  certain  preferences  within  the 
quotas,  that  is,  in  the  issuance  of  immigration  visas  tc 
immigrants  it  is  the  duty  of  consuls  to  give  preferences 
when  necessar}^  to  the  following  classes: 

'^(1)  To  a  quota  immigrant  who  is  the  unmarried  child 
under  21  years  of  age,  the  father,  the  mother,  the  husband, 
or  the  wife,  of  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  who  is  21 
years  of  age  or  over,  and 

^'(2)  To  a  quota  immigrant  who  is  skilled  in  agricul- 
ture, and  his  wife,  and  his  dependent  children  under  the 
age  of  16  years,  if  accompanying  or  following  to  join  him. 
The  preference  provided  in  this  paragraph  shall  not  apply 
to  immigrants  of  any  nationality  the  annual  quota  for 
which  is  less  than  300." 

However,  these  preferences  shall  not  in  the  case  of  quo 
immigrants  of  any  nationality  exceed  50  per  centum  of  thej 
annual  quota  for  such  nationality,  while  no  priority  inj 
preference  is  to  be  granted  to  the  class  of  immigrants  speci-' 
fied  in  paragraph  (1)  over  the  class  specified  in  paragraph 
(2).  In  case  of  quota  immigrants  of  any  nationality  the 
preference  provided  in  this  section  shall  be  given  in  the 
calendar  month  in  which  the  right  to  preference  is  estab- 
lished, if  the  number  of  immigration  visas  which  may  be 
issued  in  such  month  to  quota  immigrants  of  such  nation- 1 
ality  has  not  already  been  issued;  otherwise  in  the  next; 
calendar  month. 

As  we  have  noted,  the  Act  of  1921  admitted  from  any; 
one  country  3  per  cent  of  the  number  of  persons  born  in; 
that  country  who  were  resident  in  the  United  States  as| 
determined  by  the  census  of  1910.  The  total  quota  wasi 
357,803.  The  Act  of  1924  provides  in  section  11  that  ^The 
annual  quota  of  any  nationality  shall  be  two  per  centum 


THE  IMMIGRATION  ACT  OF  1924  183 

li' ' 

of  the  number  of  foreign  born  individuals  of  such  nation- 
ality resident  in  continental  United  States  as  deter- 
mined by  the  United  States  census  of  1890,  but  the 
painimum  quota  of  any  nationality  shall  be  100."  On 
Ifchis  basis  the  total  annual  quota  for  1925  and  1926  was 
164,667.2<^ 

This  quota  plan  was  to  stand  for  three  years,  after  which 
the  following  quota  plan  was  supposed'  to  go  into  effect: 

'The  annual  quota  of  any  nationality  for  the  fiscal  year 
beginning  July  1,  1927,  and  for  each  fiscal  year  thereafter, 
shall  be  a  number  which  bears  the  same  ratio  to  150,000 
^as  the  number  of  inhabitants  in  continental  United  States 
in  1920  having  that  national  origin  (ascertained  as  here- 
inafter provided  in  this  section)  bears  to  the  number  of 
inhabitants  in  continental  United  States  in  1920,  but  the 
minimum  quota  of  any  nationality  shall  be  100." 

Provisions  for  working  out  this  plan  are  carried  in  para- 
I graphs  (c),  (d),  and  (e)  of  section  11,  including  a  provision 
for  putting  this  plan  into  operation  by  proclamation  of  the 
President,  under  certain  conditions.    Broadly  speaking, 
the  original  effect  of  section  11  was  that  for  three  years  the 
J  quota  shall  be  based  on  a  percentage  of  the  foreign-born  in 
the  United  States  in  1890,  and  thereafter  the  quota  per- 
,  centage  was  to  be  based  upon  the  whole  white  population  of 
.  the  United  States,  with  due  regard  to  the  national  origin  of 
i  that  population.    Section  12  provides  for  the  working  out 
of  the  quotas  based  on  the  census  of  1890.  We  shall  discuss 
these  quota  provisions  fully  in  the  next  chapter,  their 
importance  justifying  such  separate  study.^^ 

^  145,971  immigrants  in  1925  and  157,432  immigrants  in  1926  were  ad- 
mitted under  the  quota  provisions.  Report  of  the  Commissioner-Gen- 
eral of  Immigration  for  1926,  page  6. 

^On  February  1,  l'927,  the  Senate,  without  a  record  vote,  adopted  Senate 
Joint  Resolution  No.  152,  introduced  by  Senator  Johnson  of  California, 
which  would  postpone  the  effective  date  of  the  National  Origins  clause 
from  April  1,  1927  to  April  1,  1928.  The  House  Committee  amended  this 
resolution  to  provide  for  the  entire  repeal  of  the  national  origins  provi- 
sions. It  reported  the  resolution,  thus  amended,  favorably  to  the  House 
on  February  8,  1927.  On  March  3  the  House  passed  the  Senate  resolution 
without  amendment.  The  Pre.sident  approved  it  March  4,  1927.  PuJ^Iio 
Resolution  No.  69. 


184 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


While  further  restricting  immigration  in  a  practice 
manner,  another  important  purpose  of  the  new  law,  as  w< 
have  seen  already,  is  to  reduce  hardships  to  the  absolutt 
minimum,  to  avoid  the  division  of  families,  to  save  th( 
nationals  of  other  countries  the  expense,  perils  and  hard! 
ships  of  the  ocean  trip  to  the  United  States,  only  to  fino 
that  for  any  one  of  various  reasons  the  immigrant  or  somf< 
member  of  his  family  may  not  enter.  One  of  the  most  con- 
structive provisions  of  the  new  law  designed  to  reduce 
such  hardships,  as  well  as  to  better  control  the  tide  of  immi- 
gration, is  the  one  which  provides  for  a  form  of  examinatior 
overseas.  Until  several  years  ago  such  a  provision  waf 
deemed  impractical  and  impossible.  Yet  such  a  plan  hac; 
the  approval  of  virtually  all  thoughtful  students  of  the 
problems  of  immigration.  It  is  the  nearest  approach  to 
the  examination  of  immigrants  overseas,  recommended  hy 
Presidents  Harding  and  Coolidge  and  so  many  others,  that 
the  United  States  may  safely  adopt  unless  we  are  willing 
that  medical,  physical  and  mental  examinations  made  in 
other  lands  shall  be  final,  and  that  the  making  of  such 
examinations  shall  be  a  subject  of  treaty  regulations. 

The  recommendations  of  President  Harding,  in  his  mes^ 
sage  at  the  opening  of  the  fourth  session  of  the  Sixtyn 
seventh  Congress,  in  regard  to  this  subject,  were  as  follows: 
'^We  had  better  provide  registration  for  aliens,  those  now 
here  or  continually  pressing  for  admission,  and  establish 
our  examination  boards  abroad,  to  make  sure  of  desirables 
only.  By  the  examination  abroad  we  could  end  the  pathos 
at  our  own  ports,  when  men  and  women  find  our  doors 
closed,  after  long  voyages  and  wasted  savings,  because  they 
are  unfit  for  admission.  It  would  be  kindlier  and  safer  td 
tell  them  before  they  embark." 

The  certificate  plan  of  control,  designated  in  the  act  asi 
'^immigration  visas,"  was  built  up  from  suggestions  of  I 
former  Commissioner-Generals  -Caminetti  and  Husband,; 
Secretary  of  Labor  Davis  and  others.  The  plan,  as  workedf 
out,  is  provided  for  in  the  law  as  follows: 


THE  IMMIGRATION  ACT  OF  1924  185 


"Sec.  2  (a)  A  consular  officer  upon  the  application  of 
my  immigrant  may  (under  the  conditions  hereinafter  pre- 
scribed and  subject  to  the  limitations  prescribed  in  the  act 
)r  regulations  made  thereunder  as  to  the  number  of  immi- 
p-ation  visas  which  may  be  issued  by  such  officer)  issue  to 
luch  immigrant  an  immigration  visa  which  shall  consist 
)f  one  copy  of  the  application  provided  for  in  section  7, 
irisaed  by  such  consular  officer.  Such  visa  shall  specify 
11)  the  nationality  of  the  immigrant;  (2)  whether  he  is  a 
:iuota  immigrant  or  a  non-quota  immigrant;  (3)  the  date 
m  which  the  validity  of  the  immigration  visa  shall  expire ; 
and  (4)  such  additional  information  necessary  to  the  proper 
enforcement  of  the  immigration  laws  and  the  naturalization 
laws  as  may  be  by  regulations  prescribed. 

"(b)  The  immigrant  shall  furnish  two  copies  of  his 
photograph  to  the  consular  officer.  One  copy  shall  be  per- 
pfianently  attached  by  the  consular  officer  to  the  immigra- 
tion visa.  .  .  . 

"(c)  The  validity  of  an  immigration  visa  shall  expire  at 
the  end  of  such  period,  specified  in  the  immigration  visa, 
pot  exceeding  four  months,  as  shall  be  by  regulations  pre- 
Bcribed.  ...  if  the  vessel,  before  the  expiration  of  the 
validity  of  his  immigration  visa,  departed  from  the  last 
port  outside  the  United  States  and  outside  foreign  con- 
tiguous territory  at  which  the  immigrant  embarked,  and  if 
!the  immigrant  proceeds  on  a  continuous  voyage  to  the 
lUnited  States,  then,  regardless  of  the  time  of  his  arrival 
jin  the  United  States,  the  validity  of  his  immigration  visa 
shall  not  be  considered  to  have  expired. 

"(e)  The  manifest  or  list  of  passengers  required  by  the 
immigration  laws  shall  contain  a  place  for  entering  thereon 
the  date,  place  of  issuance,  and  the  number  of  the  immi- 
gration visa  of  each  immigrant.  The  immigrant  shall  sur- 
render his  immigration  visa  to  the  officer  at  the  port  of 
1  inspection,  who  shall  at  the  time  of  inspection  indorse  on 
the  immigration  visa  the  date,  the  port  of  entry,  and  the 
name  of  the  vessel,  if  any,  on  which  the  immigrant  arrived. 


186  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


The  immigration  visa  shall  be  transmitted  forthwith  .  . 
to  the  Department  of  Labor. 

''(f)  No  immigration  visa  shall  be  issued  to  an  immi 
grant  if  it  appears  to  the  consular  officer,  from  statement! 
in  the  application,  or  in  the  papers  submitted  therewith 
that  the  immigrant  is  inadmissible  to  the  United  States 
under  the  immigration  laws,  nor  shall  such  immigratior 
visa  be  issued  if  the  consular  officer  knows  or  has  reason  tc 
believe  that  the  immigrant  is  inadmissible  to  the  UniteQ 
States  under  the  immigration  laws. 

''(g)  Nothing  in  this  Act  shall  be  construed  to  entitle 
immigrant,  to  whom  an  immigration  visa  has  been  issued 
to  enter  the  United  States,  if,  upon  arrival  in  the  Unit 
States,  he  is  found  to  be  inadmissible  to  the  United  Stated 
under  the  immigration  laws.  The  substance  of  this  sub- 
division shall  be  printed  conspicuously  upon  every  immi- 
gration visa. 

"(h)  A  fee  of  $9  shall  be  charged  for  the  issuance  of  each 
immigration  visa.  .  . 


Section  7  deals  with  the  application  for  the  immigration 
visa.   It  provides  as  follows: 

"(a)  Every  immigrant  applying  for  an  immigration  visa 
shall  make  application  therefor  in  duplicate  in  such  formi 
as  shall  be  by  regulations  prescribed. 

"(b)  In  the  application  the  immigrant  shall  state  (1) 
the  immigrant's  full  and  true  name;  age,  sex,  and  race;  the 
date  and  place  of  birth;  places  of  residence  for  the  five 
years  immediately  preceding  his  application ;  whether  mar- 
ried or  single,  and  the  names  and  places  of  residence  of 
wife  or  husband  and  minor  children,  if  any;  calling  or  occu-  , 
pation;  personal  description  (including  height,  complexion, 
color  of  hair  and  eyes,  and  marks  of  identification) ;  ability 
to  speak,  read,  and  write;  names  and  addresses  of  parents,) 
and  if  neither  parent  living,  then  the  name  and  addressi 
of  his  nearest  relative  in  the  country  from  which  he  comes; 
port  of  entry  into  the  United  States;  final  destination,  if 


THE  IMMIGRATION  ACT  OF  1924  187 


lany,  beyond  the  port  of  entry;  whether  he  has  a  ticket 
(through  to  such  final  destination;  whether  going  to  join  a 
relative  or  friend,  and,  if  so,  what  relative  or  friend  and  his 
complete  name  and  address;  the  purpose  for  which  he  is 
going  to  the  United  States;  the  length  of  time  he  intends 
ito  remain  in  the  United  States ;  whether  or  not  he  intends 
|to  abide  permanently  in  the  United  States;  whether  ever 
in  prison  or  alsmhouse ;  whether  he  or  either  of  his  parents 
has  ever  been  in  an  institution  or  hospital  for  the  care  and 
treatment  of  the  insane;  (2)  if  he  claims  to  be  a  non-quota 
immigrant,  the  facts  on  which  he  bases  such  claims;  and 
(3)  such  additional  information  necessary  to  the  proper 
enforcement  of  the  immigration  laws  and  the  naturalization 
laws,  as  may  be  by  regulations  prescribed. 

''(c)  The  immigrant  shall  furnish,  if  available,  to  the 
consular  officer,  with  his  application,  two  copies  of  his 
'dossier'  and  prison  record  and  military  record,  two  certified 
copies  of  his  birth  certificate,  and  two  copies  of  all  other 
available  public  records  concerning  him  kept  by  the  Gov- 
ernment to  which  he  owes  allegiance.  One  copy  of  the 
documents  so  furnished  shall  be  permanently  attached  to 
each  copy  of  the  application  and  become  a  part  thereof.  .  .  . 

''(d)  In  the  application  the  immigrant  shall  also  state 
whether  or  not  he  is  a  member  of  each  class  of  individuals 
:  excluded  from  admission  into  the  United  States  under  the 
immigration  laws,  and  such  classes  shall  be  stated  on  the 
I  blank  in  such  form  as  shall  be  by  regulations  prescribed, 
and  the  immigrant  shall  answer  separately  as  to  each  class. 

"(e)  If  the  immigrant  is  unable  to  state  that  he  does  not 
come  within  any  of  the  excluded  classes,  but  claims  to  be 
ifor  any  legal  reason  exempt  from  exclusion,  he  shall  state 
fully  in  the  application  the  grounds  for  such  alleged  ex- 
emption. 

"(f)  Each  copy  of  the  application  shall  be  signed  by  the 
immigrant  in  the  presence  of  the  consular  officer  and  veri- 
fied by  the  oath  of  the  immigrant  administered  by  the  con- 
sular officer.  .  .  . 

■  "(g)   In  the  case  of  an  immigrant  under  eighteen  years 


188  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


of  age  the  application  may  be  made  and  verified  by  sucl:| 
individual  as  shall  be  by  regulations  prescribed.  1 
*'(h)  A  fee  of  $1  shall  be  charged  for  the  furnishing  am' 
verification  of  each  application."  i 

Concerning  the  issuance  of  immigration  visas  to  relative;  ^ 
Section  9  states:   ''(b)  Any  citizen  of  the  United  Statefi 
claiming  that  any  immigrant  is  his  relative,  and  that  sucB|  ^' 
immigrant  is  properly  admissible  to  the  United  States  as  i\ 
non-quota  immigrant  under  the  provisions  of  sub-divisiori 
(a)  of  section  4  or  is  entitled  to  preference  under  sectioB; 
6,  may  file  with  the  Commissioner- General  a  petition  in|  If 
such  form  as  may  be  by  regulations  prescribed,  stating 
the  petitioner's  name  and  address;  (2)  if  a  citizen  by  birth  | 
the  date  and  place  of  his  birth;  (3)  if  a  naturalized  citizens! 
the  date  and  place  of  his  admission  to  citizenship  and  the! 
number  of  his  certificate,  if  any;  (4)  the  name  and  address! 
of  his  employer  or  the  address  of  his  place  of  business  or^ 
occupation  if  he  is  not  an  employee;  (5)  the  degree  of  the 
relationship  of  the  immigrant  for  whom  such  petition  ig 
made,  and  the  names  of  all  the  places  where  such  immigranti| 
has  resided  prior  to  and  at  the  time  when  the  petition  isjj  ^ 
filed;  (6)  that  the  petitioner  is  able  to  and  will  support  th0 
immigrant  if  necessary  to  prevent  such  immigrant  fromj  ^ 
becoming  a  public  charge;  and  (7)  such  additional  infor-  ^ 
mation  ...  as  may  be  by  regulations  prescribed.^^  | 

''(c)  The  petition  shall  be  made  under  oath.  ,  .  .  Appli- 
cation  may  be  made  in  the  same  petition  for  admission  of|l 
more  than  one  individual. 

"(d)  The  petition  shall  be  accompanied  by  the  state- i  f' 
ments  of  two  or  more  responsible  citizens  of  the  Unitedt 
States,  to  whom  the  petitioner  has  been  personally  knowni 
for  at  least  one  year,  that  to  the  best  of  their  knowledge!  ^1 

^During  the  fiscal  year  1925  approximately  29,000  petitions  from  citizens!  f'' 
were  received,  of  which  25,002  were  approved  and  3,900  rejected.    Theii  III 
petitions  approved  covered  approximately  50,000  aliens.    Report  of  the  ' 
Commissioner-General  of  Immigration  for  1925,  page  10.    In  1926  the 
number  of  petitions  was  23,856,  of  which   18,659  were  approved  andi, 
approximately  2,000  rejected.     The   petitions  approved  covered  about jj  ^ 
30,000  aliens.    Report  for  1926,  page  12.  il  ^ 


THE  IMMIGRATION  ACT  OF  1924  189 


and  belief  the  statements  made  in  the  petition  are  true  and 
that  the  petitioner  is  a  responsible  individual  able  to  sup- 
port the  immigrant  or  immigrants  for  whose  admission 
application  is  made. 

''(e)  If  the  Commissioner-General  finds  the  facts  stated 
in  the  petition  to  be  true,  and  that  the  immigrant  in  respect 
of  whom  the  petition  is  made  is  entitled  to  be  admitted  to 
the  United  States  as  a  non-quota  immigrant  ...  he  shall, 
with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  inform  the 
Secretary  of  State  of  his  decision,  and  the  Secretary  of  State 
shall  then  authorize  the  consular  officer  with  whom  the 
application  for  the  immigration  visa  has  been  filed  to  issue 
the  immigration  visa  or  grant  the  preference. 

"(f)  Nothing  in  this  section  shall  be  construed  to  entitle 
an  immigrant,  in  respect  of  whom  a  petition  under  this  sec- 
tion is  granted,  to  enter  the  United  States  as  a  non-quota 
immigrant,  if,  upon  arrival  in  the  United  States,  he  is  found 
not  to  be  a  non-quota  immigrant." 

Two  paragraphs  in  Section  11  contain  provisions  con- 
cerning visas.  They  are  as  follows: 

''(f)  There  shall  be  issued  to  quota  immigrants  of  any 
nationality  (1)  no  more  immigration  visas  in  any  fiscal 
year  than  the  quota  for  such  nationality,  and  (2)  in  any 
calendar  month  of  any  fiscal  year  no  more  immigration 
visas  than  10  per  centum  of  the  quota  for  such  nationality, 
except  that  if  such  quota  is  less  than  300  the  number  to  be 
issued  in  any  calendar  month  shall  be  prescribed  by  the 
Commissioner-General,  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary 
of  Labor,  but  the  total  number  to  be  issued  during  the  fiscal 
year  shall  not  be  in  excess  of  the  quota  for  such  nationality. 

"(g)  Nothing  in  this  Act  shall  prevent  the  issuance 
(without  increasing  the  total  number  of  immigration  visas 
which  may  be  issued)  of  an  immigration  visa  to  an  immi- 
grant as  a  quota  immigrant  even  though  he  is  a  non-quota 
immigrant.'' 

Section  13  declares:  "(a)  No  immigrant  shall  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  United  States  unless  he  (1)  has  an  unexpired 


190  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


immigration  visa  or  was  born  subsequent  to  the  issuance  oi 
the  immigration  visa  of  the  accompanying  parent,  (2)  is 
of  nationahty  specified  in  the  visa  in  the  immigration  visa, 
(3)  is  a  non-quota  immigrant  if  specified  in  the  visa  in  the 
immigration  visa  as  such,  and  (4)  is  otherwise  admissible 
under  the  immigration  laws. 

''(b)  In  such  classes  of  cases  and  under  such  conditions  aai 
may  be  by  regulations  prescribed  immigrants  who  have  been^ 
legally  admitted  to  the  United  States  and  who  depart  there- 
from temporarily  may  be  admitted  to  the  United  Statesi 
without  being  required  to  obtain  an  immigration  visa." 

Finally,  concerning  unused  immigration  visas,  Section  18| 
declares:  ''If  a  quota  immigrant  of  any  nationality  having! 
an  immigration  visa  is  excluded  from  admission  to  the 
United  States  under  the  immigration  laws  and  deported, 
or  does  not  apply  for  admission  to  the  United  States  be- 
fore the  expiration  of  the  validity  of  the  immigration  visa, 
or  if  an  alien  of  any  nationality  having  an  immigration  visaii 
issued  to  him  as  a  quota  immigrant  is  found  not  to  be  ai 
quota  immigrant,  no  additional  immigration  visa  shall  be 
issued  in  lieu  thereof  to  any  other  immigrant." 

Such  then  are  the  provisions  in  the  Act  of  1924  con- 
cerning "oversea  inspection,"  which  make  it  possible  for 
the  first  time  in  our  history  for  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment to  effectively  control  immigration  from  Europe  by  a 
proper  enforcement  of  our  immigration  laws,  as  well  as  to 
enable  us  to  reduce  the  hardships  of  the  immigrants  to  a 
minimum.  These  provisions  are  all  the  more  important 
when  we  recall  that  such  a  plan  was  first  proposed  as  early 
as  1837  by  Friedrich  List.^^  It  is  to  the  credit  of  Friedrich 
List  that  he  saw  so  early  in  our  history  the  only  clear  and| 
effective  way  of  controlling  the  immigration  tide,  viz.,  by 
regulating  it  at  its  source.  If  such  a  plan  had  been  put  into 
force  years  ago  the  so-called  immigration  problem  would 
not  be  so  big  or  so  difficult  to  solve  as  it  is  today.  Perhaps 
no  other  provision  of  the  Act  of  1924  has  met  with  such 
general  approval  as  this  one. 

"See  Chapter  II  for  List's  recommendations,  pp.  41-42. 


THE  IMMIGRATION  ACT  OF  1924 


191 


Under  the  plan  as  worked  out  and  now  in  operation  we 
can  go  fully  into  the  past  records  of  the  immigrants,  and 
can  thereby  learn  their  family  history,  their  mental,  moral, 
and  physical  qualifications.  We  are  now  able  to  weed  out 
in  advance  the  weaklings,  the  diseased,  and  the  morons. 
We  come  in  personal  touch  through  our  consuls  with  each 
immigrant  before  he  leaves  his  native  land.^"*  We  are  able 
to  tell  him  that  he  can't  come  in  since  he  belongs  to  a  cer- 
tain excluded  class,  if  such  is  the  case ;  that  a  certain  mem- 
ber of  his  family  can't  enter,  for  a  similar  reason ;  or  that 
the  quota  is  exhausted.  It  is  better  to  let  him  know  the 
truth  before  he  departs.  To  do  so  prevents  undue  hard- 
ships, uncertainty,  and  unnecessary  expense  to  those  who 
come.  When  he  is  given  the  immigration  visa  he  knows 
that  he  may  enter  as  far  as  the  quota  is  concerned.  While 
he  may  be  unable  to  pass  the  final  inspection  and  medical 
examination  which  is  made  at  the  port  of  entry  into  the 
United  States,  yet  his  chances  are  better  now  than  they 
were  before  with  no  official  overseas  examination.  The 
number  rejected  at  the  ports  of  entry  have  been  less  under 
the  present  law  than  formerly.^^  Such  a  plan  has  elimi- 
nated the  racing  of  steamships  into  the  ports  of  entry  on  the 
first  day  of  each  month.    It  has  eliminated  the  necessity 

**Iii  his  annual  report  for  1926,  page  48,  the  Secretary  of  Labor  stated: 
"One  of  the  outstanding  achievements  of  the  year  in  administration  has 
been  the  extension  of  the  foreign  service  to  continental  Europe.  Tech- 
nical advisers  on  immigration  questions  are  now  assigned  not  only  to 
the  American  consulates  in  the  United  Kingdom,  but  also  to  consulates 
in  Belgium,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Germany,  Norway,  Denmark  and 
Sweden,"  countries  which  "represent  approximately  90  per  cent  of  the 
total  number  of  quota  immigrants  admissible  to  the  United  States."  On 
December  15,  1926  there  were  28  officers  stationed  abroad  doing  immigra- 
tion work,  distributed  as  follows:  England  4,  Ireland  5,  Scotland  2, 
France  1,  Belgium  1,  Holland  1,  Denmark  1,  Germany  8,  Norway  2, 
Sweden  1,  and  Poland  1.  At  that  time  the  Public  Health  Service  stated 
that  it  would  be  necessary  to  assign  two  relief  officers  to  the  British 
Isles,  Germany,  and  Scandinavia  each.  United  States  Daily,  December 
15,  1926.  For  further  details  see  Hearings  of  the  House  Committee  on 
Immigration  and  Naturalization  on  "Methods  of  Examination  of  Aliens 
Abroad"— January  21-22,  1926,  No.  69.1.5. 

^Out  of  276,646  alien  applicants  applying  at  the  port  of  New  York 
during  the  fiscal  year  1925,  3,606,  or  1.2  per  cent,  were  rejected  and 
returned.  Of  a  total  of  270,074  alien  applicants  for  admission  at  the 
same  port  in  1926,  only  1,544,  or  less  than  six-tenths  of  1  per  cent,  were 
excluded.    Annual  Report,  Secretary  of  Labor,  1926,  p.  48. 


192  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


of  immigrants  being  forced  to  return  to  Europe  due  toi 
exhausted  quotas.  At  the  same  time  it  gives  to  our  consulsl 
power  to  prevent  obviously  undesirable  aliens  from  coming 
to  America.-^  If  we  wish  to  destroy  the  poison  or  the  pol- 
lution in  a  stream,  isn't  it  better  to  deal  with  it  at  its  source  [ 
rather  than  to  try  to  extract  it  many  miles  away  when  it  i 
has  also  defiled  much  water  that  would  otherwise  be  satis-  I 
factory?  ! 

Section  16  declares:  ''It  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  person  ' 
.  .  .  to  bring  to  the  United  States  by  water  from  any  place  ] 
outside  thereof  (other  than  foreign  contiguous  territory) 
( 1 )  any  immigrant  who  does  not  have  an  unexpired  immi-  ; 
gration  visa,  or  (2)  any  quota  immigrant  having  an  immi-  : 
gration  visa  the  visa  in  which  specifies  him  as  a  non-quota 
immigrant."    The  penalty  for  such  illegal  transportation 
is  a  fine  of  $1,000  for  each  immigrant  so  brought,  and  in  ; 
addition  a  sum  equal  to  that  paid  by  such  immigrant  for  his 
transportation  from  the  initial  point  of  departure,  indicated 
in  his  ticket,  to  the  port  of  arrival,  such  latter  sum  to  bei 
delivered  by  the  collector  of  customs  to  the  immigrant  oni 
whose  account  assessed. 

.  Section  22  deals  with  certain  offenses  in  connection  with  1 
the  documents,    ''(a)    Any  person  who  knowingly  (1) ; 
forges,  counterfeits,  or  alters,  or  falsely  makes  any  immigra- 
tion visa  or  permit,  or  (2)  utters,  uses,  attempts  to  use, 
possesses,  obtains,  accepts,  or  receives  any  immigration  visa  ' 
or  permit,  knowing  it  to  be  forged,  counterfeited,  altered, 
or  falsely  made,  or  to  have  been  procured  by  means  of  any 
false  claim  or  statement,  or  to  have  been  otherwise  pro- , 
cured  by  fraud  or  unlawfully  obtained;  or  who,  except j 
under  the  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  Labor  or  other! 

^In  his  Report  for  1926  the  Secretary  of  Labor  stated:  "Foreign  Gov- ^ 
ernments,  however,  still  make  the  primary  selection  of  immigrants  to  the 
United  States  through  their  control  of  passport  issuances.  So  long  as  we  ! 
require  passports  as  a  necessary  document  for  entry  into  the  United  States  || 
and  as  a  prerequisite  to  the  securing  of  a  visa,  this  primary  selection  of  j 
immigrants  for  the  United  States  will  be  made  by  the  foreign  Govern-  i! 
ments  concerned. 

"There  is  not,  however,  at  the  present  time  the  evidence  of  dumping 
that  appeared  a  few  years  ago."  Quoted  in  United  States  Daily,  Decem- 
ber 10,  1926. 


THE  IMMIGRATION  ACT  OF  1924  193 


proper  official,  knowingly  (3)  possesses  any  blank  permit, 
I  (4)  engraves,  sells,  brings  into  the  United  States,  or  has  in 
his  control  or  possession  any  plate  in  the  likeness  of  a 
plate  designed  for  the  printing  of  permits,  (5)  makes  any 
print,  photograph,  or  impression  in  the  likeness  of  any  im- 
migration visa  or  permit,  or  (6)  has  in  his  possession  a  dis- 
tinctive paper  which  has  been  adopted  by  the  Secretary  of 
Labor  for  the  printing  of  immigration  visas  or  permits,  shall 
upon  conviction  thereof,  be  fined  not  more  than  $10,000,  or 
imprisoned  for  not  more  than  five  years,  or  both. 

''(b)  Any  individual  who  (1)  when  applying  for  an  im- 
migration visa  or  permit,  or  for  admission  to  the  United 
States,  personates  another,  or  falsely  appears  in  the  name 
of  a  deceased  individual,  or  evades  or  attempts  to  evade 
the  immigration  laws  by  appearing  under  an  assumed  or 
fictitious  name,  or  (2)  sells  or  otherwise  disposes  of,  or 
offers  to  sell  or  otherwise  dispose  of,  or  utters,  an  immigra- 
tion visa  or  permit,  to  any  person  not  authorized  by  law 
to  receive  such  document,  shall  upon  conviction  thereof,  be 
fined  not  more  than  $10,000,  or  imprisoned  for  not  more 
than  five  years,  or  both. 

''(c)  Whoever  knowingly  makes  under  oath  any  false 
statement  in  any  application,  affidavit,  or  other  document 
required  by  the  immigration  laws  or  regulations  prescribed 
thereunder,  shall,  upon  conviction  thereof,  be  fined  not 
more  than  $10,000,  or  imprisoned  for  not  more  than  five 
years,  or  both." 

These  provisions  have  been  stated  in  full  to  emphasize 
their  seriousness  and  fullness.  That  they  are  necessary 
was  soon  evident.  The  following  case  occurred  in  August, 
1924.  Fifty  Poles  who  were  attempting  to  enter  America, 
with  false  passports  and  visas  were  arrested  at  Marseilles, 
thanks  to  the  new  underwear  they  wore.  The  manufac- 
turers of  the  false  papers,  which  were  clever  enough  to 
deceive  officials  in  ordinary  circumstances,  offered  a  free 
union  suit  with  the  counterfeit  credentials.  Unfortunately 
for  the  buyers,  they  were  so  pleased  with  the  bargain  that 
they  donned  the  underwear  inamediately  despite  the  hot 


194  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


weather.  When  the  Public  Health  Surgeon  examined  the 
group  of  Poles  he  was  so  surprised  at  the  fact  that  all  wore 
new  union  suits  of  the  same  make  that  he  reported  the  fact 
to  an  American  official.  This  led  to  an  examination  of  their 
papers,  which  under  close  scrutiny  were  obviously 
fabricated. 

Another  scheme  to  beat  the  immigration  law  was  the 
formation  of  an  ''opera"  company.  It  was  discovered  and 
foiled  by  the  police  of  Naples.  A  group  of  ingenious  clan- 
destine immigration  agents  and  swindlers  formed  a  regular 
operetta  company  with  the  assistance  of  several  bona  fide 
Italian  artists.  The  progi^am  and  itinerary  featured  a  tour 
of  North  and  South  America.  The  company  was  to  call 
itself  the  Nuova  Italia.  The  great  size  of  the  company, 
which  contained  elements  strangely  extraneous  to  operatic 
activities,  caused  the  police  to  become  suspicious  and  led  to 
its  downfall.  It  was  discovered  that  numerous  peasants 
and  workmen  figured  in  the  roll  of  the  company  in  various 
capacities,  each  having  paid  the  swindlers  from  $250  to 
$500  for  the  privilege.^"^ 

These  discoveries  are  illustrations  of  the  fact  that  the 
American  consular  officials  must  always  be  on  guard  against 
faked  papers,  and  that  we  must  punish  violators  of  the  law 
when  it  is  possible  to  do  so,  although  it  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand just  how  or  in  what  manner  we  can  punish  persons 
guilty  of  such  offenses  abroad.  If  caught  at  Ellis  Island 
or  any  other  port  of  entry  the  question  must  and  will  arise 
as  to  whether  we  shall  simply  deport  the  offenders  (which 
would  give  them  another  opportunity  to  enter  illegally) 
or  whether  we  shall  first  fine  and  imprison  and  then  deport 
them.  In  many  cases,  however,  it  would  be  impossible  to 
fine  them  for  they  have  little  or  no  money.  It  would  seem 
that  the  law  is  not  quite  definite  and  clear  enough  here. 
It  is  absolutely  necessary  that  some  effective  punishment 
should  be  worked  out.^^ 

"Taken  from  the  Chicago  Tribune,  August  9,  1924. 

^Before  it  adjourned  in  June,  1926  the  House  passed  what  was  to  have 
been  the  Deportation  Act  of  1926.  Due  to  the  pressure  of  other  legisla- 
tion no  action  was  taken  in  the  Senate  prior  to  the  adjournment  of 


THE  IMMIGRATION  ACT  OF  1924 


195 


Sections  19  and  20  strengthen  the  provisions  in  the  Act  of 
1917  designed  to  prevent  the  illegal  entrance  of  aliens  as 
seamen,  although  it  is  yet  doubtful  whether  the  provisions 
are  altogether  adequate  to  check  the  evil  they  are  designed 
to  remedy.    Experience  has  demonstrated  that  the  efforts 
of  Congress  in  the  passage  of  acts  over  a  period  of  many 
years  excluding  undesirable  aliens  from  the  United  States 
have  been  thwarted  to  an  alarming  degree  by  the  surrepti- 
I  tious  entry  of  persons  debarred  by  the  terms  of  the  statute. 
I  One  of  the  most  fruitful  sources  of  evasion  of  these  pro- 
I  visions  and  illegal  entry  has  been  the  crews  employed  on 
:  ships  entering  ports  of  the  United  States.    In  a  letter  to 
ithe  Hon.  John  E.  Raker,  Mr.  Furuseth  stated:       ''It  is 
generally  understood  the  $1,000  is  paid  by  the  Chinese  for 
!  being  landed  in  the  United  States  in  such  a  way  that  he  can 
\  at  once  mingle  with  others  of  his  kind ;  and  when  we  know 
that  vessels  manned  with  Chinese  are  constantly  going 
away  with  from  10  to  40  or  even  50  men  less  in  the  crew 
I  than  they  had  on  arrival  we  must  realize  that  we  are  here 
dealing  with  a  temptation  to  shipowners  and  to  officers  of 
vessels  that  is  great  enough  to  tempt  the  shipowners  as 
well  as  the  officers.    Again,  vessels  coming  from  Europe 
(have  on  one  trip  to  this  country  left  behind  them  from 
I  50  to  150  persons,  a  great  many  of  whom  would  have  been 
j  refused  admission  if  coming  as  regular  immigrants." 

For  several  years  there  was  no  proper  enforcement  of 
I  the  provisions  in  the  Act  of  1917  designed  to  deal  with  this 
condition  of  affairs,  due  to  a  weakness  in  section  32.  The 
flaw  was  that  the  shipmaster,  although  required  to  detain 
inadmissible  seamen,  could  not  be  punished  for  failure  to 
detain  unless  it  was  shown  that  he  had  notice  in  writing  so 
to  do.  Notice  in  writing  anterior  to  the  breach  of  respon- 
sibility to  detain  was  physically  impossible. 

Congress,  March  4,  1927.  See  Hearinr^s  No.  69.1.11  of  the  House  Com- 
mittee on  Immigration  and  Naturalization,  March  25,  26,  April  13,  1926 
on  "Deportation  of  Alien  Criminals,  gunmen,  narcotic  dealers,  defectives 
etc.,"  for  much  information  concerning  the  necessity  for  additional  legis- 
lation on  deportation. 
'"Congressional  Record,  Monday,  June  23,  1924,  p.  11637. 


196  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


In  an  apparent  effort  not  to  impair  in  any  way  the  lib- 
erty accorded  to  seamen  under  the  Act  of  March  4,  1915, 
commonly  known  as  the  LaFollette  Law,  and  at  the  same 
time,  not  to  impose  regulations  so  onerous  as  to  cripple 
the  free  movement  of  shipping,  and  possibly  arouse  retal- 
iatory legislation  abroad.  Congress  in  sections  19  and  20 
evolved  provisions  which  have  proved  inadequate  to  correct 
the  evils  they  were  designed  to  cure.  As  a  result  they 
have  been  subject  to  much  criticism  since  their  enactment. 
Unquestionably,  however,  they  have  helped  to  give  effect 
to  the  general  principles  upon  which  the  law  is  based. 
Furthermore,  they  can  be  made  effective  by  additional  legis- 
lation.^^ Section  19  provides  that  ''no  alien  seaman  ex- 
cluded from  admission  to  the  United  States,  under  the 
immigration  laws  and  employed  on  board  any  vessel  arriv- 
ing in  the  United  States  from  any  place  outside  thereof, 
shall  be  permitted  to  land  in  the  United  States,  except  tem- 
porarily for  medical  treatment,  or  pursuant  to  such  regula- 
tions as  the  Secretary  of  Labor  may  prescribe  for  the  ulti- 
mate departure,  removal,  or  deportation  of  such  alien  from 
the  United  States." 

Section  20,  sub-section  (a)  provides  that  "the  owner, 
charterer,  agent,  consignee,  or  master  of  any  vessel  arriv- 
ing in  the  United  States  from  any  place  outside  thereof 
who  fails  to  detain  on  board  any  alien  seaman  employed 
on  such  vessel  until  the  immigration  officer  in  charge  at 
the  port  of  arrival  has  inspected  such  seaman  .  .  .,  or  who 
fails  to  detain  such  seaman  on  board  after  such  inspection 
or  to  deport  such  seamen  if  required  by  such  immigration 
officer  or  the  Secretary  of  Labor  to  do  so,  shall  pay  to  the 
collector  of  customs  of  the  customs  district  in  which  the 
port  of  arrival  is  located  the  sum  of  $1,000  for  each  alien 
seaman  in  respect  to  whom  such  failure  occurs."  Sub- 
section (b)  provides  that  "proof  that  an  alien  seaman  did 

'"In  his  report  for  1925,  the  Commissioner-General  stated:  ''While  the 
provision  in  question  has  proved  decidedly  helpful,  reports  received  from 
seaport  stations  indicate  that  the  door  through  which  aliens  are  unlaw- 
fully entering  in  the  guise  of  seamen  swings  altogether  too  widely  open 
for  the  welfare  of  the  country."   Page  22. 


THE  IMMIGRATION  ACT  OF  192  197 


>  not  appear  upon  the  outgoing  manifest  of  the  vessel  on 
h  which  he  arrived  in  the  United  States  .  .  .  shall  be  prima 
le  facie  evidence  of  a  failure  to  detain  or  deport  after  re- 
e  quirement  by  the  immigration  officer  or  the  Secretary  of 
I- 1  Labor." 

l[    Concerning  this,  the  Report  of  the  Commissioner-Gen- 

t'eral  of  Immigration  for  the  Fiscal  Year  Ending  June  30, 

i\  1924,  stated: 

"Closely  allied  to  border  running  is  the  illegal  entry  of 

[  alleged  seamen  who  come  to  United  States  ports  as  mem- 

,  bers  of  ships'  crews  and,  taking  advantage  of  shore  privi- 
leges granted  under  the  law,  desert  the  vessels  bringing 
them  and  remain  in  the  country.  Bona  fide  seamen  have  a 
legal  right  to  go  ashore  in  any  port,  and  under  our  laws  are 
free  to  leave  their  vessels  for  the  purpose  of  reshipping 
foreign.    In  fact  this  is  the  natural  and  inherent  right  of 

i  seagoing  men  which  even  the  immigration  law  recognizes 

il  and  respects." 

The  deserting  seaman  method  of  gaining  illegal  entry 

I  has  been  practiced  to  some  extent  ever  since  immigration 
laws  began  to  interfere  with  the  unrestricted  coming  of 
aliens,  but  under  the  quota  law,  and  especially  during  the 
past  few  years,  such  violations  have  grown  to  rather  alarm- 
ing proportions.  This  fact  is  strikingly  illustrated  in  the 
following  figures,  showing  the  number  of  reported  deser- 
tions in  United  States  ports  in  each  year  since  1911: 


Fiscal  year  ending  June  30 

Number 
deserting 
seamen 
reported 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30 

Number 
deserting 
seamen 
reported 

1911   

6,594 
6,384 
9,136 
9,747 
6,458 
6,584 
8,572 
4,756 

1919   

3.388 
13,543 
21,839 

5,879 
23,194 
34,679 
19,710 
18,456 

1912  

1920   

1913  

1921   

1914  

1922   

1915  

1923   

1916  

1924   

1917  

1925   

1918  

1926   

Taken  from  annual  reports  of  the  Commissioner-General  of  Immi- 
gration, 


198  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


During  the  12  years  1911  to  1922,  inclusive,  the  annua' 
average  number  of  desertions  was  8,573,  and  this  period  in 
eluded  the  abnormal  years  of  1920  and  1921,  when  oceai,* 
transportation  suffered  what  almost  amounted  to  a  coll 
lapse.  In  the  two  fiscal  years  referred  to  hundreds  upoij 
hundreds  of  ocean-going  ships  of  all  nations  were  tied  up  iij 
harbors  of  the  United  States  and  other  countries  with  th(j 
result  that  thousands  of  alien  seamen  were  left  stranded  ir 
our  ports.  In  view  of  this  it  is  hardly  fair  to  count  the  ex\ 
cessive  numbers  in  these  two  years  as  desertions,  for  manj 
thousands  of  them  were  simply  stranded  here,  and,  as  stateC| 
in  the  annual  report  for  1922,  the  Immigration  Bureau  wa^ 
deluged  with  requests  to  deport  or  in  some  way  to  returrl 
them  to  their  home  countries. 

This  has  not  been  the  situation  since  then,  however! 
and  the  only  reasonable  explanation  of  the  great  increase  iri 
desertions  is  that  men  who  could  not  come  into  the  country 
in  a  legal  way,  largely  because  of  quota  restrictions,  signecj 
on  vessels  in  foreign  ports  as  seamen  and  in  that  guisd 
gained  admission  by  taking  illegal  advantage  of  the  shore 
liberty  which  the  seaman's  act  rightfully  accords  to  all 
bona  fide  followers  of  the  sea. 

*'To  construct  legislation  which  will  enable  the  Immigra- 
tion Service  to  prevent  the  unlawful  entry  of  aliens  in  the 
guise  of  seamen  without  interfering  with  the  legal  and  in- 
herent shore  privileges  of  bona  fide  seamen  is  a  difficult  if  j 
not  impossible  task.    It  is  hoped,  however,  that  certain  j 
provisions  of  the  immigration  act  of  1924,  .  .  .  will  afford  ' 
some  relief  in  this  regard.   The  evident  purpose  of  this  new  ' 
legislation  is  to  avoid  infringement  on  the  rights  assured  ; 
to  bona  fide  seamen  under  the  present  seamen's  act,  but  at  i 
the  same  time  to  make  it  possible  to  refuse  shore  privileges 
to  intending  immigrants  who  have  taken  this  means  of  get- 
ting into  the  country.    The  hope  of  accomplishment  lieS; 
in  the  authority  given  immigration  officers  to  order  the 
detention  of  pretending  seamen  on  board  vessels  bringing 
them  to  a  United  States  port  and  their  deportation  on  the| 
same  vessel,  the  penalty  for  failure  to  so  detain  and  deport| 


THE  IMMIGRATION  ACT  OF  1924 


199 


mng  fixed  at  $1,000  for  each  alien  seaman  in  respect  of 
Ivhom  such  failure  occurs. 

"The  full  effect  of  this  provision  of  law  cannot  be  fore- 
seen, but  the  outlook  is  promising,  and  if  its  enforcement 
esults  in  a  more  careful  selection  of  crews  in  foreign  ports 
vith  the  purpose  to  avoid  shipping  men  who  are  immigrants 
instead  of  seamen,  it  is  believed  that  much  good  will  be 
iccomplished." 

Section  23  places  the  burden  of  proof  upon  the  alien  to 
<  Drove  that  he  is  not  subject  to  exclusion  under  any  pro- 
vision of  the  immigration  laws.  In  any  deportation  the 
:>urden  of  proof  is  also  placed  upon  the  alien  to  show  that 
le  entered  the  United  States  lawfully  and  is  not  for  any 
jause  subject  to  such  deportation,  although  in  presenting 
such  proof  he  is  entitled  to  the  production  of  his  immigra- 
tion visa,  if  any,  or  other  documents  concerning  his  entry, 
in  the  custody  of  the  Department  of  Labor. 

The  reason  for  this  provision  was  stated  in  the  report  of 

the  House  Committee     as  follows:   "An  alien  seeking  to 

enter  the  United  States  should  not  stand  mute,  but  should 
1    .  .  ..... 

assist  the  Government  by  showing  admissibility  if  he  can. 

iNo  longer  should  admissibility  be  presumed  until  the  Gov- 
ernment can  marshal  its  forces  to  prove  inadmissibility.  An 
alien  remains  within  the  country  not  by  right,  but  by  suf- 
iferance." 

,1  In  referring  to  the  standing  mute  of  aliens  the  commit- 
tee doubtless  had  in  mind  the  important  decision  of  the 
Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Second  Circuit  in  the  case 
of  an  ex-president  of  Venezuela.^^ 

The  Commissioner-General  of  Immigration  in  his  report 
for  1919  called  attention  to  the  serious  situation  that  ex- 

!  "Quoted  from  annual  report  of  Commissioner-General  of  Immigration 
'for  1924.  For  detailed  information  on  the  subject  see  Hearings  of  the 
House  Committee  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization  No.  69.1.5  Janu- 
ary 21  and  22,  1926  on  "Deportation  of  Alien  Seamen."  See  also  Sup- 
plementary Hearing  No.  69.1.15,  May  14,  1926.  The  deportation  bill 
passed  by  the  House  June  7,  1926  contained  provisions  designed  to  remedy 
the  evasions  of -these  sections  of  the  immigration  law. 
House  Report  350,  68th  Congress,  1st  Session. 
United  States  ex  rel.  Castro  v.  Williams,  203  Fed.  155. 


200 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


isted  in  this  respect.  He  stated:  ^'A  nation,  no  more  thai' 
a  man,  should  be  placed  in  a  position  where  an  outside 
can  demand  the  opening  of  the  door  without  giving  a  ful 
account  of  himself  and  showing  that  he  is  a  fit  persoi; 
to  enjoy  the  hospitality  that  he  seeks."  j 

Section  25  declares,  ^The  provisions  of  this  Act  are  ii' 
addition  to  and  not  in  substitution  for  the  provisions  oi 
the  immigration  laws,  and  shall  be  enforced  as  a  part  o| 
such  laws.  ...  An  alien,  although  admissible  under  th<| 
provisions  of  this  act,  shall  not  be  admitted  to  the  Uniteci 
States  if  he  is  excluded  by  any  provision  of  the  immigratiori 
laws  other  than  this  act,  and  an  alien,  although  admissiblt: 
under  the  provisions  of  the  Immigration  laws  other  thaiij 
this  act,  shall  not  be  admitted  to  the  United  States  i:. 
he  is  excluded  by  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  Act."  \ 

The  bill  passed  the  House  on  April  12  by  a  vote  of  32c: 
to  71  with  38  not  voting.  It  passed  the  Senate  April  18  b> 
an  even  larger  majority,  the  vote  being  62  to  6  with  28  no1 
voting.  The  President  received  it  on  May  19  and  signec 
it  on  May  26,  1924.  While  an  analysis  of  the  vote  reveals 
the  fact  that  the  fight  was  not  a  partisan  one,  33  Republi- 
cans and  37  Democrats  voting  in  the  House  against  the 
bill  becoming  law,  nevertheless  the  vote  also  reveals  the 
fact  that  races  will  stick  together  and  that  the  foreign  ele- 
ment in  this  country  has  power  in  Congress.  Representa- 
tives voting  against  the  measure  were  from  the  following 
States:  New  York,  24;  New  Jersey,  9;  Massachusetts,  8; 
Pennsylvania  and  Illinois,  6  each;  Connecticut,  5;  Rhode 
Island  and  Michigan,  3  each;  while  the  other  votes  were 
scattered. 

The  population  in  four  of  these  states  according  to  the  census  of  192C 
was  as  follows: 


New  York 


Total  Population   

Native  born  of  native  parents 


10,385,227 
3,668,266 


New  Jersey 


Total  Population   

Native  born  of  native  parents 


3,155,900 
1,212,675 


as 


Page  290. 


THE  IMMIGRATION  ACT  OF  1924  201 


'  Massachusetts 

Total  Population    3,852,356 

Native  bom  of  native  parents    1,230,773 

Connecticut 

Total  Population    1,380,631 

Native  bom  of  native  parents    449,206 

Nearly  one-half  of  the  no  votes  came  from  five  cities — ■ 
namely,  New  York,  Chicago,  Boston,  Cleveland  and  De- 
troit. In  three  of  these  five — New  York,  Chicago,  and 
^Cleveland — races  of  south  and  east  Europe  now  are  the 
'dominant  foreign-born  nationalities.  In  Detroit  the  Poles 
'have  reached  second  place;  in  Boston,  Russians  and 
Italians  are  steadily  displacing  the  Irish.  The  most  in- 
teresting fact,  perhaps,  is  that  eighteen  of  the  no  votes 
came  from  New  York  City,  where  only  one  person  in  five 
is  native  born  of  native  parents. 

According  to  Congressman  Albert  Johnson,  the  sources  of 
opposition  were  and  still  are:  ^'(1)  Those  who  believe  that 
the  law  is  not  sufficiently  restrictive.  For  the  most  part 
J  this  opposition  was  not  a  stumbling  block, 
f  "(2)  Those  who  believe  that  the  law  does  not  admit 
[enough  common  laborers  to  do  the  rough  work  of  the 
I  United  States. 

I  "(3)  Those  who,  while  pretending  to  favor  restriction, 
j  really  want  anybody  and  everybody  except  the  insane,  the 
;  criminal  and  the  diseased,  so  that  they  may  proceed  to  reap 
.  dividends  from  their  particular  lines  of  endeavor,  whether 
f  the  lines  be  mills,  factories,  steamships,  newspapers  of  vari- 
f  ous  languages,  or  the  like,  in  addition  to  bondsmen,  somo 

lawyers,  common  crooks,  and  others  who  daily  exploit  the 
I  newly  arrived  alien. 

"(4)  Those  of  an  international  mind,  who  think  that 
1  migrations  should  not  be  impeded,  except  possibly  from 

China,  Korea,  Japan  and  India. 

"(5)  Those  who  for  religious,  racial,  or  family  reasons 
'  desire  more  of  their  own  to  be  residents  of  the  United 

States.    This  source  of  opposition  was  and  is  very  great, 


202  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


coming  chiefly  from  the  Jewish,  Italian  and  Catholic  ele  i 
ments  in  our  country.  ' 

*'(6)  Those  who  have  been  led  to  believe  that  the  Unitec 
States  can  go  throughout  the  world  handpicking  brick 
layers  here,  plasterers  there,   gardeners  elsewhere  an(j 
farmers  at  another  place,  and  bring  them,  without  though] 
of  families,  to  our  States;  in  other  words,  selection,  distri*! 
bution  and  supervision."  ; 

''See  Fairchild,  Immigration,  rev.  ed.,  pp.  434-450  for  the  argument^ 
u?ed  by  the  opponents  of  restriction. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


Back  to  1890  ^ 

.''hb  history  and  characteristics  of  the  "old"  and  the  "new"  immigra- 
ion — The  Italian  immigrants — The  Slavs — The  Russian  immigrants — 
The  Jewish  immigration — Views  of  various  authorities  on  immigration — 
The  test  of  naturalization — The  army  tests — Report  of  Dr.  H.  H.  Laughlin 
kf  the  Carnegie  Institute — Analysis  of  the  quotas  based  on  the  census  of 
flsQO — The  criticism  of  discrimination  is  without  foundation — Census  of 
890  creates  equalization  rather  than  discrimination — The  National  Origins 
^lan. 

At  the  preseni  time  European  immigration  to  the  United 
States  may  be  divided  into  two  groups,  the  ^^old"  and  the 
'new."  The  ''old"  immigration  has  extended  from  the  be- 
ginning of  our  colonial  and  national  history  to  the  present 
time  and  has  been  and  still  is  derived  chiefly  from  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland,  Germany,  Holland,  and  the  Scandina- 
v^ian  countries.  Since  practically  all  the  immigrants  to  1890 
belonged  to  this  ''old"  immigration,  they  were  predomi- 
nantly Anglo-Saxon-Germanic  in  blood  and  Protestant  in 
religion — of  the  same  stock  as  that  which  originally  settled 
the  United  States,  wrote  our  Constitution  and  established 
our  democratic  institutions.  The  English,  Dutch,  Swedes, 
iGermans,  and  even  the  Scotch-Irish,  who  constituted  prac- 
tically the  entire  immigration  prior  to  1890,  were  less  than 
two  thousand  years  ago  one  Germanic  race  in  the  forests^ 
surrounding  the  North  Sea.  Thus,  being  similar  in  blood 
and  in  political  ideals,  social  training  and  economic  back- 
ground, this  "old"  immigration  has  merged  with  the  native 

*In  this  chapter  it  is  the  purpose  of  the  author  merely  to  set  forth  and 
analyze  the  factors  and  views  that  have  resulted  in  the  opposition  to  the 
"new"  immigration — views  which  controlled  Congress  in  the  drafting  of 
the  Act  of  1924.  It  is  not  the  author's  purpose  to  judge  as  to  the  truth- 
fulness of  the  facts  set  forth  by  those  opposed  to  the  ''new"  immigration. 

203 


204  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


stock  fairly  easily  and  rapidly.    Assimilation  has  alwajj  ^ 
been  only  a  matter  of  time  and  this  has  been  aided  by  th  ? 
economic,  social  and  political  conditions  of  the  countr  t' 
Even  though  those  already  here  objected  at  times  to  otheij  ^ 
coming  in,  yet  once  in  they  have  soon  become  Americaim  P 
so  assimilated  as  to  be  indistinguishable  from  the  nativesj!  t" 
for  this  old  immigration  has  consisted  almost  wholly  q|  ? 
families  who  have  come  to  this  country  with  the  full  intenl 
tion  of  making  it  their  home  and  of  becoming  Americail 
citizens.  It  was  this  immigration  that  aided  so  much  in  thii 
development  of  agriculture  in  the  great  Central  West  ain| 
in  the  construction  of  our  incomparable  transportation  sy& 
tem.    Furthermore,  in  comparison  with  the  recent  "new; 
immigration,  it  has  always  been  small  in  volume,  while  th^ 
abundance  of  free  land  in  the  past,  our  need  of  pioneeri 
and  the  willingness  of  these  "old"  type  immigrants  to  g( 
into  the  West  and  settle  on  the  land,  prevented  the  rise  d 
many  serious  problems.  | 
In  the  period  centering  about  the  year  1880,  and  in  par 
ticular  in  the  decade  1880-1890,  there  was  a  distinct  shifl 
in  the  immigration  movement.   Whereas  before  1890  most 
of  our  immigrants  were  Anglo-Saxons  and  Teutons  fronl 
Northern  Europe,  since  1890  and  prior  to  the  quota  legisi 
1  lation  in  1924  the  great  majority  were  members  of  thti 
.  Mediterranean  and  Slavic  races  from  Southern,  EasterrI 
and  Southeastern  Europe.    The  great  bulk  of  this  ''new'| 
immigration  has  its  sources  in  Russia,  Poland,  Austriai^ 
Hungary,  Greece,  Turkey,  Italy,  and  the  Balkan  countries' 
It  is  this  "new"  immigration  which  constitutes  the  immi- 
gration problem  of  today.    Its  solution  challenged  our  at- 
tention. 

That  such  a  change  has  occurred  can  be  clearly  indicated| 
by  figures.  | 

The  total  number  of  immigrants  into  the  United  Statee 
from  Western  Europe  between  1871  and  1880  was  2,080,266 
while  the  total  from  southern  and  eastern  Europe  was  onlyi 
181,638.  But  between  1901  and  1910  the  total  from  the 
former  was  2,007,119,  while  the  number  from  southern  and 


BACK  TO  1890 


205 


eastern  Europe  increased  to  6,128,897.  Thus,  while  immir 
gration  from  western  Europe  was  almost  the  same  for  the 
two  decades,  that  from  southern  and  eastern  Europe  in- 
creased from  181,000  to  over  6,000,000.  During  the  former 
period  immigration  from  the  latter  portion  constituted 
only  9  per  cent  of  the  total  from  Europe,  while  in  the 
iperiod  from  1901  to  1910  it  was  about  75  per  cent.  The 
following  table  will  illustrate  the  point  still  further,  show- 
jing  the  gradual  decrease  of  the  old  and  the  rapid  increase 
lof  the  new  immigration : 


Eight  years  (1882-1889) : 

Old  immigration    3,019,6C6 

New  immigration    708.357 

Total   3,728,053 

Seven  years  (1890-1896): 

Old  immigration    1,652,797 

1    New  immigration    1,194,189 

Total   2,846,986 

Eighteen  years  (1897-1914) : 

Old  immigration    2,983,548 

New  immigration   10,057,576 

Total   13,041,124 

Total  old  immigration  (1882-1914)   7,566,041 

Total  new  immigration  (1882-1914)   11,960,122 


!       Total  immigration  from  Europe,  old  and  new  (1882-1914)  19,526,163 

The  relative  proportion  of  the  old  and  new  immigration 
[groups  is  as  follows:  (Under  the  ''old"  immigration  are 
I  classified  all  immigrants  from  the  United  Kingdom,  Ger- 
imany,  France,  Belgium,  Denmark,  Netherlands,  Switzer- 
land and  Sweden,  while  under  the  "new"  immigration  are 
included  those  from  Austria,  Hungary,  Bulgaria,  Greece, 
Czechoslovakia,  Italy,  Jugoslavia,  Poland,  Russia,  Finland, 
Spain,  Portugal,  Rumania  and  Turkey) : 


Decades 

Old  Immigration 

New  Immigration 

1860-1870   

98.4 

1.6 

1870-1880   

91.6 

8.4 

l  ^SO-1890   

80.2 

19.8 

lsi)0-1900   

48.4 

51.6 

1900-1910   

23.3 

76.7 

1910-1920   

22  8 

77.2 

1920-1922  

36.8 

63.2 

206 


BACK  TO  1890 


207 


Under  the  3  per  cent  law  of  1921  the  old  immigration  was 
entitled  to  56.33  per  cent,  while  the  new  immigration  had 
44.64  per  cent.  Under  the  new  law  of  1924  the  respective 
percentages  are  84.11  and  14.88.  We  shall  discuss  these 
facts  later  in  the  chapter.  It  is  important  to  note  here, 
however,  that  the  quota  laws  have  changed  the  relative  pro- 
portions radically,  so  that  now  they  are  about  what  they 
were  prior  to  1890. 

The  summary  of  arrivals  from  1819  to  1919  according  to 
the  sources  of  immigration  were  as  follows: 


Country 

Total 

Per  cent,  of 

Immigration 

Total 

8,205,675 

24.7 

i  Germany   

5,494,539 

16.6 

Italy   

4,100,740 

12.4 

4,068,448 

12.3 

1  Russia  

3,311,400 

10.0 

2,134,414 

6.4 

5,884,887 

17.6 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  practically  all  the  immigrants  from 
Italy,  Austria-Hungary  and  Russia  have  come  in  since  1890. 
Immigrants  from  these  countries  were  practically  negli- 
igible  until  1882.  Italy  sent  32,160  in  1882,  a  maximum  of 
77,647  in  1903,  and  29,391  in  1914.  Russia  sent  21,590  in 
1882,  a  maximum  of  about  291,000  in  1913,  and  255,660 
lin  1914.  Austria-Hungary  sent  27,935  in  1881,  a  maximum 
lof  338,452  in  1907,  and  278,152  in  1914.  Scandinavia 
laveraged  approximately  50,000  per  year  from  1869  to 
1914,  with  extremes  of  11,274  in  1877  and  105,326  in 
1882. 

I  Indeed,  more  than  half  the  approximate  35,000,000  immi- 
Igrants  who  have  come  to  our  shores  since  1820  have  come 
iwithin  the  last  thirty-five  years.  The  peak  of  immigration 
was  reached  in  the  decade  preceding  the  World  War  when 
in  the  years  1905,  1906,  1907,  1910,  1913  and  1914  more 
than  a  million  immigrants  landed  each  year,  while  immi- 
Igration  averaged  about  800,000  for  each  year  not  men- 
tioned. 


Immigration  to  the  United  States  of  Northern  and  Western  European 
Races  and  Southern  and  Eastern  European  Races,  1899  to  1923* 

1895     1900     1905     1910      1915     1920  1925 

1,300,000 


i.2oaooo 


U  00,000 


1895     1900  1905 


1915      19?0  1925 


*  From  Eleventh  Annual  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  Labor  for  the  fiscal 
year  ended  June  30,  1923. 

208 


BACK  TO  1890  209 

During  the  years  1899  to  1923  the  total  immigration  may 
be  summarized  thus : 

General  Race  Classes. 


[For  years  earlier  than  1899  figures  are  not  available.] 


Year 

Northern 

and 
western 
Europe 

Eastern  and 
southern 
Europe 
(including 
Hebrew) 

Southern 
American 

Oriental 

Other 
races 

All  races 

1899 

100,187 

203,890 

1,791 

5,070 

777 

311,715 

1900 

11(5.454 

314!o7l 

3,114 

13,958 

975 

448,'572 

1901 

128^924 

348,100 

2,330 

7,768 

796 

487.918 

1902 

162,840 

464,795 

3,771 

16,198 

1,139 

648^743 

1903   

236!l05 

589^708 

5,905 

22^880 

2,448 

857',046 

247,066 

532,969 

8,866 

20,874 

3,095 

812,870 

1905   

288,295 

705,475 

10,692 

18,066 

3,971 

1,026,499 

1906   

269,936 

801,054 

8,793 

16,126 

4,826 

1,100,735 

1907   

281,322 

956,019 

8,007 

32,705 

7,296 

1,285,349 

1908   

233,235 

512,882 

11,178 

19,417 

6,158 

782,870 

1909   

209,418 

510,168 

20,885 

5,464 

5,851 

751,786 

276,272 

727,431 

23,141 

6,369 

8,357 

1,041,570 

269,701 

567,431 

24,992 

6,407 

10,056 

878,587 

1912  

232,404 

559,738 

27,630 

7,978 

10,422 

838,172 

1913  

271,419 

889,627 

16,587 

10,576 

9,683 

1,191,892 

1914  

253,855 

921,160 

19,568 

11,619 

12,278 

1,218,480 

1915  

142,168 

148,798 

16,885 

11,306 

7,543 

326,700 

1916  

127,990 

128,214 

23,469 

11,184 

7,969 

298,826 

122,927 

127,545 

23,822 

11,031 

10,078 

295,403 

42,892 

27,991 

21,744 

11,954 

6,037 

110,618 

1919  

71,202 

17,628 

34,328 

11,898 

6,076 

141,132 

1920   

165,871 

184,903 

58,032 

11,059 

9,536 

430,001 

1921  

206,995 

537,144 

36.004 

11,962 

13,123 

805,228 

1922   

129,434 

141,621 

21,366 

11,137 

5,998 

309,556 

1923   

274,507 

162,095 

67,51;:; 

9,986 

8,218 

522,919 

Total  

4,863,419 

11,081,057 

500,413 

323,592 

162,706 

16,929,107 

However,  the  net  immigration  was  not  so  great  by  about 
a  third,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  table  on  page  210. 

Let  us  note  briefly  the  characteristics  of  the  new  immi- 
grants. The  immigrants  from  Italy  have  differed  from 
those  from  Russia,  Austria-Hungary  and  Ireland  in  that 
they  have  not  been  driven  forth  by  the  oppression  of  the 
dominant  race,  but  as  a  result  of  the  economic  and  political 
conditions  of  a  united  people.  This  does  not  exclude  op- 
pression as  a  cause  of  expatriation,  but  it  transfers  the 
oppression  from  that  of  one  race  to  that  of  one  class  upon 
another.  By  far  the  larger  portion  of  Italian  immigration 
has  come  a>id  still  comes  from  the  southern  provinces  and 
from  Sicily,  where  the  power  of  the  landlords  is  greatest. 


210 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


Immigration  and  Emigration,  and  Net  Gain  or  Loss,  1908  to  1923, 

BY  Race* 

(Figures  for  Emigration  are  not  of  Record  for  Earlier  Period.) 


Race 


African  

Armenian   

Bohemian  and  Moravian 
(Czech)   

Bulgarian,  Serbian  and  Mon- 
tenegrin   

Chinese   

Croatian  and  Slovenian  

Cuban   

Dalmatian,  Bosnian,  and 
Herzegovinian   

Dutch  and  Flemish  

East  Indian   

English   

Finnish   

French   

German   

Greek  

Hebrew   

Irish   

Italian  (North)   

Italian  (South)   

Japanese   

Korean   

Lithuanian   

Magyar   

Mexican   

Pacific  Islands  

Polish  

Portuguese   

Rumanian  

Russian   

Ruthenian  (Russniak)  

Scandinavian  

Scotch   

Slovak   

Spanish  

Spanish  American   

Syrian   

Turkish   

Welsh  

West  Indian  (except  Cuban) 

Other  Peoples   

Not  Specified   


Total   9,949,740 


Immigra- 
tion 

Emigra- 
tion 

Net 
Gain 

Ppr  ppn  f 
TT.rnioprn  - 

-1— iXi-lIgX  CX 

f  1  nn  nf 

Immigra- 
tion 

103,045 

22,478 

80,567 

22 

58,606 

8,955 

49,651 

15 

77,737 

14,951 

62,786 

19 

104,808 

92,886 

11,922 

89 

36,693 

47,607 

— 10,914 

130 

225,914 

114,766 

111,148 

51 

41,439 

24,037 

17,402 

58 

30,690 

8,904 

21,786 

29 

141,064 

24,903 

116,161 

18 

6,123 

2,126 

3,997 

35 

706,681 

146,301 

560,380 

21 

105,342 

30,890 

74,452 

29 

304,240 

62,538 

241,702 

21 

669,564 

119,554 

550,010 

18 

366,454 

168,847 

197,607 

46 

958,642 

52,034 

906,608 

5 

432,668 

46,211 

386,457 

11 

401,921 

147,334 

254,587 

37 

1,624,353 

969,754 

654,599 

60 

125,773 

41,781 

83,992 

33 

1,358 

995 

363 

73 

137,716 

34,605 

103,111 

25 

226,818 

149,319 

77,499 

66 

356,536 

68,713 

287,823 

19 

192 

58 

134 

30 

788,957 

318,210 

470,747 

40 

128,527 

39,527 

89,000 

31 

95,689 

63,126 

32,563 

66 

210,321 

110,282 

100,039 

52 

171,823 

28,996 

142,827 

17 

448,846 

97,920 

350,926 

22 

301,075 

38,600 

262,475 

13 

225,033 

127,593 

97,440 

57 

153,218 

61,086 

92,132 

40 

30,408 

11,488 

18,920 

38 

59,260 

14,376 

44,884 

24 

13,147 

11,330 

1,817 

86 

26,152 

3,376 

22,776 

13 

18,761 

8,475 

10,286 

45 

34,146 

15,608 

18,538 

46 

147,645 

— 147,645 

9,949,740 

3,498,185 

6,451,555 

35 

*  From  I']lev'enth  Annual  Report  of  Secretary  of  Labor  for  the  fiscal  yea; 
ended  June  30,  1923. 


BACK  TO  1890 


211 


The  prosperity  of  the  landlords  is  extracted  from  the  miser- 
:  able  wages  of  their  laborers,  whose  cost  of  living  does  not, 
j  however,  correspond  with  the  low  wages.    In  addition  to 
i  the  economic  and  political  causes  of  pressure,  there  is  an- 
'  other  cause  of  a  more  profound  nature,  the  rapid  growth  of 
population.    The  very  poverty  of  Italy  increases  the  tend- 
ency to  a  high  birth-rate  and  the  rate  is  highest  in  the  very 
1  districts  where  illiteracy  and  poverty  are  greatest.  Thus 
'  early  marriages  and  large  families  are  both  a  result  and  a 
cause  of  poverty.   Emigration  is  the  only  immediate  relief 
for  such  a  condition.    All  other  remedies  which  operate 
through  raising  the  intelligence  and  the  standards  of  living 
i  require  years  for  appreciable  results,  but  meanwhile  the 
I  persistent  birth-rate  crowds  new  competitors  into  the  new 
1'  openings  and  multiplies  the  need  of  economic  and  political 
reforms  before  they  can  be  put  into  effect.   While  emigra- 
tion is  thus  a  relief  ready  at  hand,  it  is  not  a  lessening  of 
population,  an  important  fact  to  be  considered  in  our  re- 
striction of  immigration.    Emigration  is  also  a  means  of 
revenue  for  the  mother  country.   Many  millions  of  dollars 
are  sent  back  each  year  to  families  and  relatives,  while 
many  immigrants  return  with  what  to  them  is  a  fortune 
in  order  to  purchase  and  improve  a  farm  and  cottage  for 
their  declining  years.    It  is  for  the  most  part  these  tem- 
rporary  immigrants  into  the  United  States  whom  it  is  impos- 
Isible  to  assimilate  or  to  Americanize. 

There  are  two  kinds  of  emigration  from  Italy,  almost  as 
.  entirely  distinct  from  each  other  as  the  emigration  from 
two  separate  nations.  The  north  Italian  is  an  educated, 
skilled  artisan,  coming  from  a  manufacturing  section  and 
largely  from  the  cities.  He  is  Teutonic  in  blood  and  ap- 
pearance. The  South  Italian  is  virtually  an  illiterate 
peasant  from  the  great  landed  estates,  with  wages  less 
than  one-third  that  of  his  northern  compatriot.  The  North 
Italians  have  not  come  to  the  United  States  in  any  con- 
siderable numbers.  They  have  gone  to  Argentina,  Uru- 
jguay,  and  Brazil  in  about  the  same  numbers  as  the  South 


212  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 

Italians  have  come  to  us.^  The  reason  for  this  seems  to  be 
obvious.  With  their  higher  standards  of  living  the  North 
Italians  have  not  desired  to  come  here  to  compete  with 
the  low  standards  of  the  South  Italians  any  more  than 
American  laborers  or  immigrants  from  Northern  and  West- 
ern Europe  desire  to  or  can  compete  with  them.  Thus,; 
while  the  North  Italians  have  gone  to  South  America  we 
have  received  the  South  Italians,  ''who  are  nearly  the  most 
illiterate  of  all  immigrants  at  the  present  time,  the  most 
subservient  to  superiors,  the  lowest  in  their  standards  of 
living  and  at  the  same  time  the  most  industrious  and 
thrifty  of  all  common  laborers."  ^ 

The  immigration  prior  to  the  World  War  from  that  part 
of  Europe  which  constituted  the  Austro-Hungarian  Empire, 
unlike  the  Italians,  was  composed  of  a  congeries  of  races 
and  languages  distinct  from  one  another.  With  the  break- 
ing up  of  the  Empire  most  of  these  races  have  been  given 
each  its  own  quota  of  immigrants  into  the  United  States. 
But  the  significance  of  this  immigration  is  revealed  only 
when  we  analyze  it  by  races.  Prior  to  the  World  War  the 
race  map  of  this  Empire  showed  the  most  complicated 
social  mosaic  of  all  modern  nations  and  as  far  as  present 
day  immigration  is  concerned  the  same  situation  exists 
despite  the  break  up  of  the  empire.  Prior  to  the  war  there 
existed  a  juxtaposition  of  hostile  races  and  a  fixity  of  lan- 
guage held  together  only  by  the  outside  pressure  of  the 
powerful  neighboring  nations.  This  conflict  of  races  aggra- 
vated the  conditions  which  caused  millions  to  emigrate. 
Not  only  were  there  five  grand  divisions  of  the  human 
family — the  German,  the  Slav,  the  Magyar,  the  Latin,  and 
the  Jew — within  what  was  formerly  Austria-Hungary,  but 
these  had  to  be  sub-divided  to  really  understand  the  situa- 
tion. In  the  northern  mountainous  and  hilly  sections  were 
the  Slavic  peoples,  the  Czechs,  or  Bohemians,  with  their 
closely  related  Moravians,  and  the  Slavic  Slovaks,  Poles, 

*See  Commons,  Races  and  Immigrants  in  America  (new  edition),  p.  78. 
Chapter  IV,  "Nineteenth  Century  Additions,"  should  be  read  in  this  con- 
nection. 

^  Commons,  oj).  cit.,  p.  79. 


BACK  TO  1890  213 

and  Ruthenians  (Russniaks) ;  while  in  the  southern  hills 
aiitl  along  the  Adriatic  were  other  Slavs,  the  Croatians, 
.Servians,  Dalmatians,  and  Slovenians.  Between  these  divi- 
,sions  were  the  two  dominant  races,  the  Magyars  and  the 
:,  Germans.    To  the  southwest  was  the  Italian  element  and 
I  in  the  east  were  the  Latinized  Slavs,  the  Rumanians.  In 
[general  the  Slavs  were  the  conquered  peoples,  being  domi- 
'  nated  by  the  Germans  and  Magyars.    The  northern  Slavs 
were  subject  to  Austria  and  Hungary.    The  Ruthenians 
suffered  a  double  subjection,  being  serfs  of  their  fellow- 
Slavs,  the  Poles,  whom  they  hate.  The  Southern  Slavs  and 
Rumanians  were  subject  to  Hungary.   In  general  it  may  be 
said  that  the  Slavic  immigrant  furnishes  a  most  difficult 
problem  in  assimilation  due  to  the  fact  that  his  past,  his  cus- 
toms and  his  inherited  traditions  make  change  slow. 

''With  all  of  this  confusing  medley  of  races,  with  its 
,  diversity  of  Greek  and  Roman  Catholicism  and  Judaism, 
with  its  history  of  race  oppression  and  hatred,  with  its 
•almost  universal  serfdom  and  low  standards  of  living,  it  is 
not  surprising  that  in  America  the  different  races  should 
group  and  settle  together  and  often  break  out  into  factions 
and  feuds  wherever  thrown  together  among  us."  ^ 

For,  from  such  a  conglomeration  of  races  it  is  impossible 
that  political  and  social  entanglements  and  difficulties 
/  should  not  arise.  Coming  in  millions  it  has  been  impossible 
to  even  begin  to  assimilate  and  Americanize  them.  Practi- 
cally the  entire  immigration  has  been  that  of  peasants.  As 
in  other  countries  of  low  standards,  the  number  of  births 
in  this  section  of  Europe  is  large  in  proportion  to  the 
,  inhabitants.  Thus  poverty,  ignorance,  inequality  and  help- 
lessness all  play  their  part  in  producing  a  very  high  birth- 
rate.   The  result  has  been  the  emigration  to  America  of 
many  whose  low  standards  of  living,  whose  ignorance  and 
racial  hatreds  have  made  it  impossible  for  us  under  present 
conditions  to  assimilate  and  have  marked  them,  in  the 
:  minds  of  those  who  favor  immigration  restriction,  along 
y  with  the  Italians  and  Russians,  as  undesirable  immigrants. 

I    *  Commons,  op.  cit.,  p.  82. 


214  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


The  significant  fact  concerning  Russian  immigration  is 
that  less  than  five  per  cent  of  it  has  been  Russian  and  the 
rest  non-Russian.  ^'The  Russian  peasant  has  been  and 
probably  is  the  most  oppressed  of  the  peasants  of  Europe.  I 
He  is  also  probably  the  most  ignorant  and  degraded.  He' 
has  been  so  tied  to  the  soil  by  his  system  of  communism, 
his  burden  of  taxes  and  debt  and  his  subjection  to  auto-' 
cratic  rule,  that  he  has  been  until  recently  immune  to  the 
fever  of  emigration."  ^  During  the  past  few  years  in  the! 
face  of  starvation  and  famine  million-s  have  migrated  to 
other  parts  of  Europe.  Millions  more  have  wanted  to  do 
likewise.  However,  the  races  which  have  abandoned  Rus-i 
sia  in  the  last  thirty  years  or  more  have  been  driven  forthi 
primarily  because  they  refused  to  submit  to  the  policyj 
which  would  by  force  assimilate  them  to  the  language  oit 
religion  of  the  dominant  race,  among  whom  have  been  the 
Jews,  the  Poles,  the  Lithuanians,  the  Finns,  and  some  Ger-i 
mans  who  settled  east  of  the  Volga  river  over  a  centuryj 
ago  by  invitation  of  Catherine  II.  The  Poles  and  Lithu-j 
anians  are  Slavic  peoples,  while  the  Finns  are  a  Teutoniq 
people  with  a  Mongol  language.  Due  to  changes  resulting 
from  the  World  War,  each  of  these  races  with  the  exceptiori 
of  the  Jewish,  has  its  own  quota  of  immigrants  who  mayi 
enter  the  United  States.  But  the  conditions  in  this  part  of 
Europe,  which  have  marked  these  races  as  undesirable 
immigrants  continue  at  the  present  time,  and  are  similar 
to  those  which  have  created  the  belief  that  immigrants 
from  what  was  formerly  Austria-Hungary  are  undesirable 

Most  of  the  present  Jewish  immigration  is  from  Russia 
and  what  is  not  from  there  comes  from  adjoining  territory 
which  has  been  the  case  for  thirty  years  or  more.  Durin^ 
American  history  Jewish  immigration  has  come  here  frorr 
all  countries  of  Europe,  the  first  recorded  immigratior 
being  that  of  Dutch  Jews,  driven  from  Brazil  by  the  Por- 
tuguese and  received  by  the  Dutch  government  of  Ne\^ 
Amsterdam.  Quite  a  large  number  of  Portuguese  anc 
Spanish  Jews  have  come  to  America  by  way  of  Holland 

"Commons,  op.  cit.,  p.  87. 


BACK  TO  1890 


215 


The  great  influx  of  German  Jews  followed  the  Napoleonic 
wars  and  reached  its  height  at  the  middle  of  the  century. 

Under  the  Catholic  polity  following  the  Crusades  the 
Jew  had  no  rights  and  he  could  therefore  gain  protection 
only  through  the  personal  favor  of  emperor,  king  or  feudal 
lord.    The  sovereigns  of  Europe  protected  the  Jews  in 
order  to  exact  large  sums  of  money  from  their  profits  as 
usurers  and  traders.    The  Jews,  being  thus  utilized  like 
sponges  to  draw  from  the  subjects  illicit  taxes,  became  the 
lobject  of  persecution  when  the  people  gained  power  over 
'their  sovereigns^  Only  in  Germany  and  other  parts  of  the 
Holy  Roman  Empire  where  political  confusion  prevailed 
were  the  emperor  and  petty  sovereigns  able  to  continue 
their  protection  of  the  Jews.   There  was  only  one  country, 
'^Poland,  in  the  center  of  Europe,  where  the  kings  invited  the 
Jews  and  hither  the  persecuted  race  fled  from  the  Russians 
,  in  the  east  and  later  from  the  Germans  in  the  west.  How- 
ever, Poland  was  soon  divided  between  Russia,  Prussia  and 
I  Austria  and  the  persecutions  continued.    The  popular 
hatred  of  the  Jews  in  Europe  has  been  stirred  at  times  to  a 
frenzy  by  yellow  journals.   There  is  reason  to  believe  that 
in  the  past  the  Russian  government  has  encouraged  this 
popular  antipathy  toward  the  Jewish  race  for  the  sake 
of  diverting  the  indignation  of  the  masses  from  itself.  It 
I  is  certain  that  the  attitude  of  the  government  has  been 
,  most  hostile  toward  the  Jews.    It  is  true,  therefore,  that 
,  they  have  been  subject  to  much  oppression  in  Russia  in 
I  the  last  fifty  years  and  since  the  World  War  their  suffering 
,  has  been  great,  although  it  has  hardly  been  worse  than 
j  that  of  the  Armenians.    It  is  partly  due  to  these  oppres- 
!  sions  that  so  many  Jews  desire  to  come  to  America.  How- 
ever, the  present  quota  law  based  on  the  census  of  1890 
has  resulted  in  a  drastic  reduction  of  the  Jewish  immigra- 
tion since  it  is  largely  from  Russia  and  adjoining  territory. 
I  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  Jews  in  America,  especially 
I  in  the  eastern  states,  are  for  the  most  part  bitterly  opposed 
\  to  the  present  quota  legislation.* 

*It  is  impossible  here  to  siudy  in  detail  the  merits  of  the  Jewish  im- 


216  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 

Let  us  analyze  the  views  of  some  of  the  leading  authori 
ties  on  immigration  to  see  what  they  say  concerning  thr 
*'new"  immigration.*  i 

In  his  discussion  of  the  change  in  the  character  of  Euro^ 
pean  immigration  since  1890,  Professor  Commons  says:i 
.  ''A  line  drawn  across  the  Continent  of  Europe  from  nortlj 
east  to  south  west,  separating  the  Scandinavian  peninsular! 
the  British  Isles,  Germany,  and  France  from  Russi^ 
Austria-Hungary,  Italy,  and  Turkey,  separates  countries  no! 
only  of  distinct  races  but  also  of  distinct  civilizations.  It 
separates  Protestant  Europe  from  Catholic  Europe ;  it  sepa-, 
rates  countries  of  representative  institutions  and  populaij 
government  from  absolute  monarchies;  it  separates  landd 
where  education  is  universal  from  lands  where  illiteracy 
predominates;  it  separates  manufacturing  countries,  pros 
gressive  agriculture,  and  skilled  labor  from  primitive  hanc 
J  industries,  backward  agriculture,  and  unskilled  labor;  i1 
V  separates  an  educated,  thrifty  peasantry,  from  a  peasantry! 
scarcely  a  single  generation  removed  from  serfdom;  it  sepa-' 
rates  Teutonic  races  from  Latin,  Slav,  Semitic,  and  Mon-| 
golian  races.  When  the  sources  of  American  immigration! 
are  shifted  from  the  Western  countries  so  nearly  allied  td 
our  own,  to  Eastern  countries  so  remote  in  the  main  at- 
tributes of  Western  civilization,  the  change  is  one  thatj 
should  challenge  the  attention  of  every  citizen.  Such  a 
,  change  has  occurred."  ^ 

In  his  ''History  of  the  American  People,"  'Woodrowi 
Wilson  stated :  'The  census  of  1890  showed  the  population'j 
of  the  country  increased  to  62,622,250,  an  addition  of  12,- 
466,467  within  the  decade.  Immigrants  poured  steadily  in| 
as  before,  but  with  an  alteration  of  stock  which  students  ofl 
affairs  marked  with  uneasiness.    Throughout  the  century 

migration  from  Russia.  Much  literature,  pro  and  con,  exists  on  the  sub- 
ject. It  is  evident,  however,  that  the  present  restrictions  against  them 
mark  the  end  to  the  United  States  being  an  asylum  for  the  oppressed  of 
any  and  all  countries. 

*  The  author  has  tried  to  select  statements  which  reflect  the  views  and 
set  forth  the  arguments  used  by  the  restrictionists  in  recent  years,  which 
had  weight  with  Congress,  without  regard  to  the  merits  thereof.  i 

•Commons,  op.  ext.,  pp.  69-70.  'Vol.  V,  p.  212.  || 


T  

BACK  TO  1890  217 

nen  of  the  sturdy  stocks  of  the  north  of  Europe  had  made 
ip  the  main  strain  of  foreign  blood  which  was  every  year 
idded  to  the  vital  working  force  of  this  country  or  else 
iTien  of  the  Latin-Galhc  stocks  of  France  and  northern 
|[taly,  but  now  there  came  multitudes  of  men  of  the  lower 
plass  from  the  south  of  Italy  and  men  of  the  meaner  sort 
[3ut  of  Hungary  and  Poland — men  out  of  the  ranks  where 
there  was  neither  skill  nor  energy  nor  any  initiative  of 
quick  intelligence^ — and  they  came  in  numbers  which  in- 
creased from  year  to  year,  as  if  the  countries  of  the  south 
Df  Europe  were  disburdening  themselves  of  the  more  sordid 
f^and  hapless  elements  of  their  population,  the  men  whose 
istandards  of  life  and  of  work  were  such  as  American  work- 
men had  never  dreamed  of  hitherto. 

'The  people  of  the  Pacific  coast  had  clamored  these  many 
years  against  the  admission  of  immigrants  out  of  China, 
and  in  May,  1892,  got  at  least  what  they  wanted — a  Fed- 
eral statute  which  practically  excluded  from  the  United 
States  all  Chinese  who  had  not  already  acquired  the  right 
of  residence ;  and  yet  the  Chinese  were  more  to  be  desired, 
as  workmen  if  not  as  citizens,  than  most  of  the  coarse  crew 
that  came  crowding  in  every  year  at  the  eastern  ports." 

Speaking  in  the  Senate  ®  in  favor  of  the  literacy  test,  Mr. 
Elihu  Root  of  New  York  State  said:  ^'I  think  there  is  a 
general  and  well  founded  feeling  that  we  have  been  taking 
in  immigrants  from  the  Old  World  in  recent  years  rather 
more  rapidly  than  we  have  been  assimilating  them.  They 
[have  been  coming  in  rather  more  rapidly  than  they  have 
been  acquiring  American  habits  of  thought  and  the  Ameri- 
can spirit  of  government. 

"The  specific  reason  why  I  think  this  educational  quali- 
fication will,  as  a  whole,  be  a  great  advantage  is  that  it  will 
especially  affect  a  very  large  immigration  from  southeastern 
Europe,  which  has  in  recent  years  furnished  the  unassimi- 
lated  element,  this  element  which  is  difficult  for  us  to 
tassimilate,  and  which  when  it  gets  here  is  cut  off  from  the 
general  sentiment  and  opinion  of  the  country.'' 
"April  18,  1912. 

I 


218 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


In  his  report  to  the  Senate  ^  recommending  the  emergenc;' 
quota  legislation  of  1921,  Senator  Dillingham  stated:  "Thi 
new  immigration  coming  almost  wholly  from  southern  an( 
eastern  Europe  differs  in  character  from  the  old  immigra; 
tion  in  that  substantially  70  per  cent  of  it,  as  a  whole,  con 
sists  of  males,  and  substantially  86  per  cent  of  the  malei; 
are  living  single  lives,  being  unmarried  or  having  left  theiil 
wives  in  Europe.    They  come  to  the  United  States  no' 
so  much  for  the  purpose  of  remaining  here  and  making 
homes  as  to  seek  profitable  employment  at  the  seats  o:' 
our  great  basic  industries.  ... 

'The  committee  does  not  look  upon  normal  immigratior' 
from  northern  and  western  Europe  as  in  any  sense  a  prob 
lem.  Such  immigration  has  from  the  beginning  been  to  i 
large  extent  one  of  families;  they  have  come  to  the  Unitec 
States  with  the  intention  of  remaining  and  making  homes ; 
they  have  distributed  themselves  throughout  the  Unitec 
States,  have  become  property  owners,  are  interested  in  all 
local  and  national  problems,  and  are  also  readily  assimi- 
lated into  the  body  of  American  citizenship.  .  .  .  Unlike 
the  older  immigration  which  distributed  itself  to  every  part 
of  the  country,  entered  every  branch  of  activity  and  was 
as  a  rule,  quickly  and  thoroughly  assimilated,  the  new 
immigration  has  consisted  largely  of  single  men,  it  has  gone 
directly  to  the  cities  and  to  the  manufacturing  centers,  and 
has  remained  there.  It  has  moved  in  racial  groups  and  to 
a  large  extent  has  maintained  them,  and  compared  with 
the  older  immigration  it,  as  a  rule,  shows  a  slighter  tend- 
ency to  become  American  citizens  and  the  number  who  have 
gone  to  the  land  have  been  negligible. 

''The  committee  are  of  the  opinion  that  in  the  present 
emergency  a  restriction  should  be  applied  to  the  type  last 
described  and  are  convinced  that  such  restriction  should  be 
accomplished  through  some  measure  that  will  insure  defi- 
nite effectiveness." 

In  an  article,  'The  Menace  of  the  Open  Door,"  Profes- 

"  Senate  Report  No.  17,  pp.  3-8,  U.  S.  67th  Congress,  1st  Session,  April  j 
28,  1921.  I 


I  BACK  TO  1890  219 

uor  E.  A.  Ross  stated:  '^As  a  result  of  the  growing  hetero- 
i;eneity  society  can  scarcely  make  up  its  mind  any  more 
|5ave  on  matters  of  such  elemental  appeal  as  fire  protection, 
sanctity  of  property,  good  roads  and  public  improvements. 
The  'interests',  politicians,  and  the  foreign  nationalistic 
^organizations  play  one  element  off  against  another  so  that 
jA^e  are  not  getting  on  as  we  should. 

\  ''Long  ago  Americans  formed  the  habit  of  expecting  their 
'Country  to  lead  the  world  in  popular  progress.  But  we 
lave  had  the  mortification  of  seeing  people  after  people 
ipass  ahead  of  us  in  such  matters  as  education,  status  of 
women,  sanitation,  law  enforcement,  vice  suppression,  pub- 
lic morals,  etc.  In  infant  saving  thirteen  peoples  are  ahead 
[oi  us.  Such  stalling  and  fumbling  is  the  inevitable  result 
of  the  cross  purposes  and  confusion  of  ideas  that  result 
from  excessive  heterogeneity." 

I  As  early  as  1891  Francis  A.  Walker  wrote:  "Foreign  im- 
migration into  this  country  has,  from  the  time  it  first  as- 
sumed large  proportions,  amounted  not  to  a  reinforcement 
of  our  population,  but  a  replacement  of  native  by  foreign 
stock.  .  .  .  The  American  shrank  from  the  industrial  com- 
petition thus  thrust  upon  him.  He  was  unwilling  himself 
to  engage  in  the  lowest  kind  of  day  labor  with  these  new 
elements  of  population;  he  was  even  more  unwilling  to 
bring  sons  and  daughters  into  the  world  to  enter  into  that 
competition.  .  .  .  The  more  rapidly  foreigners  came  into 
the  United  States,  the  smaller  was  the  rate  of  increase,  not 
merely  among  the  native  population  separately,  but 
throughout  the  population  of  the  country  as  a  whole.'* 
The  inevitable  result  has  been  foreign  colonies  and  great 
numbers  of  unassimilated  aliens  in  our  midst. 
,  In  1890  Professor  R.  M.  Smith  claimed  that  the  out- 
breaks of  anarchism  and  socialism  in  this  country  are  due 
to  the  presence  of  unassimilated  foreigners.  He  stated: 
"An  indication  of  the  unfortunate  effect  of  introducing  so 
many  men  of  foreign  birth  and  belief  into  our  social  body 

I    ^Overland  Monthly,  February,  1922,  pp.  27-29. 
"Quoted  in  Commons,  op.  cit.,  pp.  198-199. 


220  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


is  seen  in  the  recent  outbreaks  of  anarchism  and  socialism. 
These  movements  are  always  led  and  for  the  most  part  car- 
ried on  by  persons  of  foreign  birth.    Socialism  and  an- 
archism are  not  plants  of  American  growth  nor  of  Anglo- 1 
Saxon  origin.   They  are  not  natural  to  the  American  mind;  ' 
neither  are  they  due  to  any  deterioration  in  the  condition 
of  the  laboring  class  in  this  country,  and  thus  the  fruit  of 
despair  and  hopelessness  in  regard  to  the  future.   They  are  ' 
the  importations  of  foreign  agitators  who  come  here  for  the 
purpose  of  making  converts  to  their  doctrines.^' 

Speaking  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  Congressman 
S.  D.  McReynolds  stated:  ^The  census  of  1920  shows 
that  there  were  nearly  14,000,000  of  foreign  birth  in  the ' 
United  States.  Statistics  show  that  of  all  males  over  21 
years  of  age  in  the  United  States  22.1  per  cent  are  of  foreign 
birth,  which  is  over  one  fifth  of  the  total.  Of  course,  much 
higher  percentages  are  reported  in  certain  sections  of  the ' 
country.  In  the  Western  Atlantic  States — New  York,  New 
Jersey  and  Pennsylvania — 35.4  per  cent  of  the  male  popula- 
tion 21  years  of  age  and  over  is  foreign  born.  In  the  New 
England  States,  38.2  per  cent;  in  Massachusetts,  41.9  per 
cent;  in  Boston,  46.3  per  cent;  and  in  New  York  City,  53.4 
per  cent.  And  it  is  further  estimated  that  80  per  cent  of 
the  population  in  New  York  City  is  either  foreign  born  or 
of  foreign  parentage.   Is  not  this  condition  alarming?  .  .  . 

^'Suppose  we  concede,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that 
those  who  come  are  as  intelligent  as  we  are;  as  moral  as  we 
are;  as  law-abiding  as  we  are;  but  coming,  as  they  do,  with 
different  environments,  different  ideas  of  government,  dif- 
ferent social  relations  and  ideals,  they  will  hold  on  to  their 
ideals,  spreading  their  doctrines  in  this  country  and  under- 
taking to  force  the  same  upon  us.  They  have  never  lived 
under  a  republic,  and  it  is  the  history  of  most  Latin  coun- 
tries that  a  republic  cannot  prevail,  that  they  live  greatly 
in  revolution  and  fomentation.  Any  judge  can  constitute 
an  alien  an  American  citizen,  but  it  takes  a  change  of  heart 

"Smith,  R.  Mayo,  Emigration  and  Immigration,  p.  88. 
"April  8,  1924.    Congressman  McReynolds  was  a  mcinbor  of  the  House 
Committee  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization. 


BACK  TO  1890 


221 


land  mind  to  make  an  American.  .  .  .  An  immigrant  might 
be  a  good  worker  and  a  good  citizen  in  his  own  country  by 
intuition  but  not  necessarily  able  to  become  a  good 
American. 

I  "One  of  the  greatest  menaces  is  the  large  number  of 
newspapers  published  in  this  country  in  foreign  languages. 
There  are  over  1,500  such  papers  published  in  the  United 
iStates  in  more  than  30  different  languages.  The  constant 
luse  of  the  native  language  of  itself  has  a  tendency  to  pre- 
vent the  amalgamation  of  and  Americanization  of  foreign- 
ers, and  furthermore,  there  was  proof  before  your  commit- 
tee that  many  of  these  papers  are  disloyal  to  this  Govern- 
ment, teaching  loyalty  to  the  government  from  which  they 
icome.  In  a  single  block  in  New  York  City  it  is  said  that  18 
languages  are  spoken.  In  fact,  this  great  city  was  referred 
'to  by  one  of  foreign  birth  before  your  committee  in  the 
House  as  the  greatest  foreign  city  in  the  world.  .  .  . 

"The  conditions  existing  in  this  country,  as  well  as 
throughout  Europe,  are  such  that  we  must  protect  America 
^from  this  foreign  menace  which  is  seeking  to  enter  our 
country. 

"Since  the  world's  Great  War,  many  dangerous  and 
deadly  doctrines  have  sprung  up  throughout  Europe;  gov- 
ernments have  been  changed  over  night,  and  in  many  in- 
jstances  the  rights  of  property  and  freedom  of  speech  and 
action  are  unknown.  These  same  dangerous  and  deadly 
idoctrines  have  been  spread  throughout  this  country,  to 
a  great  extent  by  foreign  propaganda  and  foreigners. 

"Communists  with  headquarters  in  Russia  are  perfecting 
their  organizations  in  this  country,  and  to  such  an  extent 
that  not  long  since  the  Secretar}^  of  State,  Mr.  Hughes,  saw 
^t  to  expose  their  intrigues  in  this  country  and  claimed  that 
the  final  purpose  of  these  organizations  was  to  overthrow 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  and  plant  a  Red  Flag 
lupon  the  White  House  in  Washington.  Not  long  since 
•Lenin,  the  great  leader  of  the  Communistic  party,  which 
controls  Russia,  died;  and  since  that  time  over  a  thousand 
memorials  have  been  held  in  this  country  for  him.  This 


222  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


shows  the  dangers  which  we  face  and  that  it  is  up  to  the 
American  people  to  see  that  America  is  kept  American." 

On  March  12,  1924,  there  appeared  in  the  Washington 
Post,  an  administration  paper,  an  editorial  headed  ''Speed 
Immigration  Legislation."  This  editorial,  among  other 
things,  said: 

''In  the  earlier  years  of  the  Republic  immigration  was 
not  at  a  rate  that  negatived  absorption,  and  most  of  those 
who  entered  did  so  with  intent  and  purpose  to  make  them- 
selves Americans,  to  attain  the  American  viewpoint  and  to 
adopt  American  ideals  and  to  adapt  themselves  to  the  cus- 
toms and  habits  of  mind  of  the  nation.  But  in  more  recent 
years  a  large  percentage  of  immigrants  have  come  with 
differences.  For  decades  now  immigrants  that  have  been 
pouring  in  have  obviously  been  bent  on  seizing  the  oppor- 
tunities offered  by  America  but  without  disposition  to 
adapt  themselves  to  the  American  viewpoint  and  to  adopt 
American  ideals  and  concepts  of  government  and  citizen- 
ship in  return.  The  record  is  crowded  with  instances  in 
which  groups  of  immigrants  have  stoutly  resisted  Ameri- 
canism, have  resented  the  suggestion  that  they  acquire  the 
language  of  the  land,  and  have  maintained  their  foreign- 
isms.  From  their  entrance  great  numbers  of  them  have 
made  it  plain  by  their  conduct  that  they  propose  merely 
to  take  what  America  has  to  give  without  giving  what 
America  should  receive.  At  the  present  time,  in  certain 
areas,  immigrants  constitute  a  substantial  percentage  of  the 
population,  and  drifting  together  and  holding  aloof  from 
Americanization,  hold  themselves  as  foreigners  in  America." 

Concerning  the  distribution  of  immigration  in  the  United 
States,  Professor  Seager  states: 

"A  complicating  aspect  of  the  growth  of  cities  in  the 
United  States  has  been  the  large  foreign  element  which 
most  of  them  contain.  In  only  twenty-eight  of  the  sixty- 
eight  cities  having  more  than  100,000  inhabitants  in  1920 

"The  fear  of  Russian  influence  and  radicalism  in  this  country  is  still 
widespread,  but  is  obviously  overdrawn.  Recent  echoes  of  such  fears  have 
been  heard  in  our  relationship  with  Mexico  and  Central  America  in  1926- 
1927. 


BACK  TO  1890 


223 


did  native  whites  of  native  parentage  constitute  as  much  as 
one-half  of  the  population.   In  nineteen  of  these  cities,  six- 

,  teen  of  which  were  in  the  New  England  and  Middle  Atlan- 

'  tic  Divisions,  over  two-thirds  of  the  population  consisted 
of  foreign  bom  whites  and  their  children.  In  twenty-one 
of  them,  including  New  Bedford  (40  per  cent),  New  York 

!  (35  per  cent),  Chicago  (30  per  cent),  and  Boston  (32  per 

;  cent),  the  foreign-born  alone  constituted  more  than  one- 

;  fourth  of  the  population.  This  large  foreign  element  in 
American  municipalities  has  added  materially  to  the  eco- 

.  nomic  and  political  difficulties  with  which  these  rapidly 
growing  centers  of  population  have  had  to  contend.  .  .  . 

:  The  states  in  which  the  foreign  born  constituted  over  one- 
fourth  of  the  population  in  1920  were:  Rhode  Island,  Mas- 
sachusetts, New  York  and  Connecticut.    If  to  the  foreign 

'  born  in  these  states  be  added  the  native  born  of  foreign 
parentage,  the  foreign  element  is  even  more  conspicuous. 
Thus  in  1920  the  foreign  born  and  the  native  born  one  or 

'  more  of  whose  parents  were  foreign  born,  constituted  in 
Rhode  Island  70  per  cent  of  the  population;  in  Massa- 
chusetts and  North  Dakota  67  per  cent;  in  Connecticut  and 

u  Minnesota  65  per  cent;  and  in  New  York  63  per  cent." 

I     In  an  article  on  immigration     by  Dr.  M.  Victor  Safford 

I  of  the  U.  S.  Public  Health  Service,  w^e  find  the  following 
remarks  concerning  the  new  immigration :  ^^This  immigra- 
tion has  been  furnishing  social  and  economic  problems  in 

j  the  countries  it  has  left.  In  our  daily  official  duties  we 
come  to  know  as  belonging  to  a  normal  human  adult  type 
the  individual  who  cannot  count  to  twenty  every  time  cor- 

I  rectly;  who  can  tell  the  sum  of  two  and  two,  but  not  of 

1  nine  and  six;  name  the  days  of  the  week,  but  not  the 
months  of  the  year;  who  knows  that  he  has  arrived  at  New 
York  or  Boston,  as  the  case  may  be,  but  does  not  know  the 

1  route  he  followed  from  his  home  or  how  long  it  took  to 

(reach  here;  who  says  he  is  destined  to  America,  but  has  to 
"Seager,  H.  R.,  Principles  of  Economics,  rev.  ed.,  pp.  34-35. 
"Presented  at  the  15th  International  Con^iress  on  Hygiene  and  Demog- 
raphy, 1912.    See  also  Safford,  Immigration  Problems  (1925). 


224 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


rely  on  showing  a  written  address  for  further  particulars; 
who  swears  he  paid  his  own  passage,  but  is  unable  to  tell 
what  it  cost,  and  at  the  same  time  shows  an  order  for  rail- 
road transportation  to  destination,  prepaid  in  this  country. 
.  .  .  Temperamental  qualities,  lack  of  mechanical  aptitude 
and  of  physical  strength,  impose  limitations  on  their  ability 
to  enter  the  more  desirable  productive  occupations  to  a  far 
greater  degree  than  is  the  case  of  the  Western  European 
immigrants.  .  .  .  Marked  growth  in  the  immigration  of 
any  particular  nationality  or  race  has  always  followed  the 
discovery  of  its  ability  to  compete  in  other  occupations 
which  have  hitherto  been  carried  on  by  older  elements  of 
our  population.  The  entrance  of  a  new  immigrant  type  in 
such  occupations  has  tended  to  be  followed  by  the  disap- 
pearance of  the  people  previously  employed  in  the  occupa- 
tions concerned.  In  so  far  as  the  previous  labor  supply 
may  have  been  derived  from  an  immigration  of  an  older 
type,  that  immigration  is  checked." 

In  comparing  our  ability  to  assimilate  the  new  with  the 
old  immigration  Frederic  J.  Haskin  has  written:^''  "The 
process  is  a  longer  and  more  tedious  one,  and  one  to  which 
the  immigrant  does  not  lend  himself  as  readily.  .  .  .  The 
immigrant  from  northwestern  Europe  quickly  becomes  a 
citizen.  .  .  .  Since  three  out  of  every  four  of  our  present- 
day  (1912)  immigrants  come  from  countries  where  pubhc 
education  is  unheard  of,  where  popular  participation  in  the 
affairs  of  the  government  is  undreamed  of,  where  dire  pov- 
erty is  the  rule,  it  is  apparent  that  the  immigration  prob- 
lem is  a  grave  one.  And  then,  when  w^e  consider  that  two- 
thirds  of  this  new  immigration  comes  from  the  rural  village 
and  is  dumped  out  upon  our  big  centers  of  population, 
where  vice  surrounds  it  and  fattens  upon  it,  where  it  feels 
all  of  the  worst  effects  of  our  civilization  and  none  of  its 
better  effects,  the  wonder  grows  that  the  problem  is  not 
more  serious  than  it  is.  But  that  it  is  a  problem  serious 
enough  is  recognized  by  all  who  have  studied  our  immigra- 
tion.   While  the  new  immigrant,  with  his  willingness  to 

"The  Immigrant,  pp.  29-35  (1913),  | 


BACK  TO  1890 


225 


work  in  the  dirt  and  filth  and  the  dangers  that  are  a  con- 
comitant, has  made  possible  much  of  America's  splendid 
industrial  development,  the  very  fact  of  his  willingness  to 
brave  these  things  and  to  brave  them  at  scant  wages,  has 
made  him  a  liabihty  to  the  nation.  .  .  .  Landing  in  a  big 
jcity  he  is  immediately  beset  by  those  who  would  exploit 
I  him.   The  toll  that  is  taken  of  these  immigrants  is  fearful. 
In  the  vast  majority  of  cases  their  condition  for  the  time 
being  is  worse  in  America  than  it  was  in  their  native  lands. 
I  But  they  sacrifice  themselves  today  in  America  in  order 
that  tomorrow  at  home  they  may  live  in  comfort.  But 
from  this  it  is  evident  that  their  assimilation  must  be  un- 
certain and  their  value  to  the  body  politic  a  doubtful 
thing." 

Another  test  by  which  the  advocates  of  immigration  re- 
striction undertook  to  determine  whether  the  immigrant 
;from  northern  and  western  Europe  or  the  one  from  south- 
ern and  eastern  Europe  can  be  more  easily  assimilated  and 
I  is,  therefore,  more  desirable  as  an  immigrant  was  to  see  to 
'what  extent  each  has  become  fully  naturalized.  Figures 
bearing  on  this  point  which  were  used  by  the  advocates 
!of  restriction  are  given  in  the  following  two  tables,  ab- 
'  stracted  from  the  report  of  the  United  States  Immigration 
1  Commission. 


Percentage  of  Immigrants  Fully  Naturalized." 
(Males  21  years  of  age  or  over,  resident  5  years  or  over  in  the  U.  S.) 


'Old"  Races 


Swiss    76.3% 

Swedish    73.9% 

Welsh    73.0% 

Irish    70.2% 

I  German    69.6% 

Scotch   64.1% 

Danish    62.9% 

Norw^egian    55.6% 

English   55.2% 

Dutch    51.8% 

[Belgian    45.1% 

'  French    40.9% 


New"  Races 


Austrian    22.1% 

Polish    19.1% 

Russian    15.1% 

Slovenian   14.3% 

Slovak    12.1% 

Magyar    10.87o 

Spanish   9.7% 

Ruthenian    8.7% 

Rumanian    8.6% 

Greek    6.9% 

Serbian    4.7% 

Portuguese    3.2% 


"Vol.  I,  p.  484  (1910). 


226 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


Percentage  Naturalized  and  Holding  First  Papers." 


''Old''  Races 

Swedish    92.3% 

Swiss    92.1% 

Welsh    87.0% 

Danish    86.8% 

German    85.7% 

Norwegian   85.6% 

Irish   82.6% 

English    80.6% 

Dutch    79.9% 

Scotch   79.1% 

Belgian   76.5% 

Bohemian  and  Moravian...  76.2% 

French    66.5% 

Canadian    (other  than 

French)    56.7% 

Canadian  (French)    31.5% 

Mexican   10.0% 


"New"  Races 

Hebrew   (other  than  Rus- 
sian)   61.6% 

Finnish    61.2% 

Hebrew,  Russian    57.2% 

Austrian    53.1% 

Armenian   49.2% 

Italian,  North.   45.8% 

Bulgarian    36.8% 

Slovenian   35.8% 

Polish    33.1% 

Lithuanian    32.5% 

Italian,  South   30.1% 

Russian    28.0% 

Magyar    26.87o 

Slovak    22.8% 

Croatian   22.5% 

Rumanian    21.9% 

Syrian   20.7% 

Greek    20.2% 

Ruthenian    19.8% 

Spanish   13.6% 

Serbian    12.8% 

Cuban   12.1% 

Portuguese    5.5% 


"Vol.  I,  pp.  485-6. 

According  to  the  census  of  1920  the  following  table  shows 
the  per  cent  of  our  foreign-born  population  who  had  become 
naturalized : 

Country  op  Origin — Per  Cent  Naturalized.^ 


Northern  and  Western  Europe  Per  Cent 

Wales    72.9 

Germany    72.8 

Denmark    69.2 

Sweden   69.0 

Norway    67.3 

Ireland   65.7 

Switzerland   64.9 

England    63.1 

Scotland   60.9 

Belgium  and  Luxemburg   60.8 

France    56.7 

Netherlands    56.0 

U.  S.  Ceasus,  1920,  Vol.  II,  p.  805. 


BACK  TO  1890 


227 


Country  of  Origin — Per  Cent  Naturalized  (Continued). 


Southern  and  Eastern  Europe  Per  Cent 

Czechoslovakia    45.8 

Finland    41.3 

Rumania    41.1 

Russia    40.2 

Austria    37.7 

Hungary    29.1 

Italy    28.1 

Poland    28.0 

Yugo-Slavia    25.2 

Lithuania   25.6 

Turkey  in  Europe   20.2 

Greece    16.8 

Portugal   16.4 

Bulgaria   12.1 

Spain    9.9 

Albania    7.4 

Naturalization  of  all  foreign-born   47.2 


It  is  obvious  in  any  impartial  study  of  the  influence  of 
foreign  immigration  on  American  laws,  American  institu- 
i  tions,  American  customs,  and  American  civilization  in  gen- 
eral, that  the  facts  disclosed  by  the  above  tables  must  be 
considered  of  the  greatest  importance.  To  study  these  fig- 
ures is  to  see  clearly  why  the  advocates  of  restriction 
wanted  to  cut  down  the  immigration  from  the  southern 
and  eastern  Europe,  for  in  not  a  single  case  in  the  above 
•  table  for  1920  does  the  naturalization  of  the  "new"  im- 
! migration  of  any  country  reach  50  per  cent. 

These  compilations  of  the  Immigration  Commission  of 
1907  and  the  United  States  census  have  been  criticized  by 
a  number  of  students  of  the  subject,  including  John  P. 
Gavit,  Professor  Franz  Boas,^^  Henry  J.  Ford,^^  George  A. 
jSchreiner  and  others.  In  his  book  '^Americans  By 
jiChoice",^^  Gavit  criticizes  the  conclusion  drawn  from  these 
itables  by  the  advocates  of  restriction. 

He  states:  "To  these  reports  is  attributable  almost  en- 
tirely the  familiar  conventional  generalization  that  there  is 
a  marked  distinction  in  what  might  be  called  'quality  of 

'   ^American  Mercury,  October,  1924. 
■   ''Ibi^I.,  September,  1924. 

^Ibid.,  December,  1924. 

"*  Chapters  VII  and  VIII. 


228  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


assimilability'  between  the  so-called  'old  immigration'  and 
the  'newer'.  .  .  .  Inasmuch  also  as  this  inference  coincided 
with  the  general  public  impression  and  prejudice  to  pre- 
cisely the  same  effect,  it  occurred  to  nobody  to  dispute  or 
seriously  to  question  their  validity." 

After  discussing  such  factors  as  the  "disparity  in  numbers 
among  racial  groups/'  ''the  length  of  residence,"  "lan- 
guage," "earning  power,"  "civic  and  political  interest,"  | 
etc.,  he  reaches  the  following  conclusions,  favorable  to  the| 
"new"  immigration.^^ 

"First.  ...  If  there  is  any  substantial  difference  in. 
'quality  of  assimilability'  between  the  'older'  races  and  the| 
'newer',  it  is  in  favor  of  the  latter. 

.   "Second,  it  is  evident  that  such  difference  as  exists  among 
(races  is  not  an  inherent  racial  quality,  but  a  difference  be- 
tween the  political,  social,  and  economic  conditions  at  the 
time  of  migration  in  the  country  of  origin. 

"Third,  and  broadly  corollary,  is  the  fact  that  the  major, 
not  to  say  exclusively,  controlling  factor  in  the  political 
absorption  of  the  immigrant  is  length  of  residence.  Thej 
longer  the  individual  lives  in  America  the  more  likely  he  is 
to  seek  active  membership  therein.  .  .  .  Sixth,  is  the  evi- 
y  dent  influence  of  social  and  economic  conditions  in  this 
country  as  they  practically  affect  the  individual.  .  .  . 
Racial  groups  show  a  slower  desire  for  citizenship  and  a 
lower  rate  of  naturalization  while  they  are  employed  in 
the  more  poorly  paid  industries." 

Very  few  students  of  immigration  who  are  advocates  of 
restriction  maintain  that  there  is  any  difference  of  inherent 
racial  qualities  between  the  old  and  the  new  immigration 
to  this  country,  other  things  being  equal,  or  that  one 
nationality  is  "superior"  to  another.  They  have  contended 
and  still  argue,  however,  that  the  new  immigration  is  not 
as  easily  assimilated  for  the  very  reasons  set  forth  by  Gavit 
in  his  conclusions,  since  he  grants  that  the  other  things  are 
not  equal. 

The  advocates  of  restriction  argue  that  it  is  because  the 

'"Pp.  252-4. 


i 


I 

I  BACK  TO  1890  229 

'(i  new  immigration  has  come  in  such  large  numbers  since 
1890;  because  there  exists  such  a  contrast  in  the  economic, 
political  and  social  background  in  the  countries  of  origin  ; 
because  the  new  immigration  has  proved  to  be  relatively 
I  unstable;  and  because  it  has  tended  of  necessity  to  seek 

reemployment  in  the  poorly  paid  industries  demanding  un- 

1-  skilled  labor — for  these  very  reasons  we  need  restrictions 
against  it.   They  readily  grant  that  had  the  new  immigra- 

t  tion  come  in  smaller  numbers  it  is  likely  that  no  such  prob- 
lems of  assimilation  and  naturalization  would  have  come 

rinto  existence.    They  contend  further  that  the  solution  to 

f '  the  problem  is  not  to  pour  more  oil  on  the  fire  but  to  check 
I  the  new  immigration  in  order  that  we  may  take  the  steps 

!!  necessary  to  eliminate  the  '^foreign  colonies'^  in  our  large 
I  cities  by  the  admission  to  citizenship  of  truly  assimilated 

ij  Americans.  Regardless  of  the  contrasting  interpretations 
of  the  data  set  forth  in  the  above  tables  and  the  merits  of 
.  the  arguments,  it  is  a  fact  beyond  question  that  the  above 
!  statistics  were  influential  in  crystallizing  opinion  against 
( the  new  immigration. 

\    During  the  World  War  something  like  one-sixth  of  our 
I  army  was  foreign-born.  The  mental  tests  which  were  given 
•  to  nearly  two  million  soldiers  brought  out  some  highly  in- 
.  teresting  and  significant  differences  between  these  foreign- 
I  born  soldiers  in  our  army  and  the  native-born  Americans, 
I  and  also  between  the  various  parts  of  the  foreign-born  con- 
tingent.   Writing  in  the  Journal  of  Heredity,  Mr.  Paul 
i  Popenoe  stated:  "If  the  mental  age  of  20  years  be  taken 
as  the  point  attained  by  a  very  intelligent  adult,  and  16 
years  as  the  average  normal  adult  of  white  American  stock, 
the  relative  standing  of  the  various  groups  is  at  once  appar- 
ent.  The  officers  form  a  group  better  than  the  average,  as 
!  one  would  expect.  .  .  . 

'The  Canadian  contingent  probably  differs  little  in  racial 
antecedents  from  the  bulk  of  the  old  white  American  stock ; 
and  its  average  mental  age  of  13.29  years  is  not  greatly 
different  from  that  which  the  whole  white  draft  would 
show,  if  the  foreign-born  elements  were  subtracted  from  it. 


230  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


For  the  present  purpose,  it  would  perhaps  not  be  far  fron 
right  to  class  the  Canadians  as  also  native-born  white 
Americans — as  many  of  them  in  fact  are. 

"Passing  this  group  the  average  soon  begins  to  declinet 
Great  Britain  stands  at  thirteen  years — and  the  inclusioni| 
of  the  Irish  in  this  classification  tends  to  pull  down  thi&| 

MEAN  JVIENTAL  AGE 

p    p    ^  ro    oj    c3  ^oi    uicSS  /^ 

^  01    '      In    '  >  01    '      01    '      01    '      'o%  ■ 

17.26  YRS.       WHITE  OFFICERS  1 

13.29  YRS.         j  CANADA 
13.08  YRS.         I  WHITE  DRAFT 
<3YRS.  \  ENGLAND, IRELAND.SCOTLAND 

12.95YRS.         I  DENMARK. NORWAY, SWEDEN 

12.85YRS.         I  GERMANY,  AUSTRIA 

II.86YRS.  n  GREECE 

11.28YRS.I  RUSSIA 

11 .19  YRS.  I  ITALY 

"|l0.37YRS.  NEGRO  DRAFT  

AVERAGE  "MENTAL  AGES"  OF  POREIGN-BORN  SOLDIERS 

Attention  is  called  to  the  extremely  low  score  made  by  men  in  the 
American  Army  draft  from  certain  foreign  countries  and  to  the  fact  that 
the  average  adult  negro  showed  only  the  intelligence  of  the  average  1  en- 
year-old  white  schoolboy.  These  figures  applied  to  immigration  would  seem 
to  have  a  very  definite  bearing  on  the  new  immigration  laws  limiting  the 
relative  number  of  immigrants  from  different  countries. 

average.  If  Ireland  were  excluded,  England  and  Scotland 
together  would  make  much  the  same  sort  of  showing  that 
Canada  does. 

"After  the  Scandinavian  countries  and  the  former  'Cen- 
tral Empires',  which  are  but  little  below  the  American 
average,  the  drop  becomes  rapid.  The  younger  men  of 
Grecian  birth  measured  below  the  average  mentality  of  a 
twelve-year-old  American  school  boy;  the  larger  contin- 


15.544 


948 
C  93,965 

m 

o 
11 

n  597 
> 

S  573 


2,701 
4,002 
18,892 


BACK  TO  1890 


231 


80    70    60    50    40    30    20    10    0    10    20  %  "'cS?.** 

GREAT  BRITAIN- 557 

WHITE  DRAFT-94.004 

HOLLAND   140 

CANADA  972 

GERMANY  299 

SCANDINAVIA— 1,627 

IRELAND  658 

AafORn6NCOUNTRlES-12.407 


TURKEY- 


 423 

AUSTRIA   301 

RUSSIA  2,340 

GREECE   572 

ITALY  4.007 


BELGIUM- 


POLAND- 


129 


392 


IMMIGRATION  AND  MENTALITY 

I  Here  the  average  mentalitj^  of  the  white  male  population  of  the  United 
'States  is  taken  as  zero.  At  the  right  of  this  line,  in  black,  is  shown  the 
')ercentage  of  foreign-born  drafted  men  above  the  American  mental  average; 
it  the  left,  percentage  below  the  American  average. 

gents  of  Russia  and  Italy  fall  still  farther,  until  the  Italians 
are  not  far  above  the  level  (10.37  years)  of  the  American 
['negro,  or  of  a  white  adult  who  is  of  'dull  mentality'.  .  .  . 
I  "It  is  apparent  that,  aside  from  English-speaking  coun- 
tries, only  Holland  and  Germany  made  contributions  that 
averaged  fairly  well  with  the  bulk  of  the  American  popula- 


232  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


tion.  And  worst  of  all  the  proportion  of  immigrants  fron  i 
these  countries  during  the  last  quarter  of  a  century  ha , 
been  small.  The  great  bulk  of  the  recent  immigration  t( 
the  United  States  has  been  made  up  of  Slavic  and  Mediter 
ranean  peoples;  and  the  startlingly  inferior  quality  of  thes 
immigrants,  from  a  psychological  point  of  view,  has  bee' 
rarely  more  strikingly  shown  than  in  these  army  return 
It  is  clear,  as  special  students  of  immigration  have  Ion 
asserted,  that  the  South  Italians,  Poles  and  Russians  wh 
have  been  imported  in  such  large  quantities  during  the  pac 
few  decades,  to  furnish  American  industry  with  chea 
manual  labor,  represent  an  extremely  inferior  racial  con 
tribution,  measured  by  existing  American  standards.  .  . 

.  .  .  The  general  trend  of  these  draft  figures  is  clear,  in- 
escapable, and  incontrovertible.  It  shows  in  a  most  strik- 
ing way  that  the  average  of  American  immigrants  during  tht 
last  quarter  of  a  century  is  below  that  of  the  native-bori 
white  population;  and  that  the  average  of  the  countries 
which  are  sending  over  most  of  the  immigrants,  is  ever 
lower  still.  This  last  average  is,  indeed,  so  deplorabl} 
low  that  it  is  a  fair  and  serious  question  whether  the  Unitec 
States  can  eugenically  afford  to  admit  any  more  such  aver- 
age immigrants.  Should  not  the  American  policy  be  thai 
of  admitting  all  who  are  superior  to  the  American  average 
and  no  others?" 

In  an  Article  in  the  North  American  Review  for  May  , 
1922  on  ''Mental  Tests  for  Immigrants,"  Dr.  Arthur  i 
Sweeney  analyzed  the  army  tests,  in  order  to  discover  the 
facts  concerning  the  desirability  of  certain  types  of  im- 
migrants.^^  He  wrote  as  follows: 

''While  we  can  measure  objectively  the  physical  qualifica- 
tions of  the  immigrant,  we  have  had  no  yardstick  with, 
which  to  form  an  accurate  estimate  of  his  intellectual  and 
moral  side,  as  well  as  those  other  intangible  qualities  which 
are  essential  to  good  citizenship. 

^  For  another  article  on  this  subject  see  "Higher  Mental  and  Physical 
S^'ln(Iil^(is  for  Immigrants"  by  Professor  Robert  DoC.  Ward  in  Scicntifici 
Monthly,  November,  1924,  Vol.  IX,  pp.  533-547.  ; 


BACK  TO  1890 


233 


"The  psychological  tests  .  .  .  have  furnished  us  with  the 
ecessary  yardstick  to  measure  the  desirability  of  the  im- 
jiigrant.    The  same  test  will  reveal  to  us,  with  relative 
recision,  those  hidden  qualities  which  will  demonstrate 
he  fitness  of  the  intending  immigrant  for  citizenship  in 
'his  country,  and  will  exclude  those  who  are  unfit.  The 
irmy  tests  rated  men  according  to  their  mental  age,  and 
lassified  them  into  groups.    The  educational  and  indus- 
rial  capacity  of  these  groups  was  determined,  and  they 
^  ere  assigned  to  positions  according  to  their  ability.  The 
)erformance  of  these  men  during  their  months  of  service 
n  their  various  duties  corresponded  very  nearly  to  their 
)sychological  ratings,  and  confirmed  the  accuracy  and  value 
I  i)f  the  tests.   The  tests  revealed  the  intellectual  endowment 
|j)f  the  men,  and  also,  to  a  large  degree,  determined  the 
I  other  qualities  of  a  soldier,  such  as  initiative,  reliability, 
Hadaptability,  and  obedience.  .  .  . 

I  'Those  examined  for  the  Army  were  grouped  according 
I  to  their  mental  age  as  follows:  D-  very  inferior,  7  to  9 
years;  D,  inferior,  9  to  11  years;  C-,  low  average,  11  to  13 
years;  C,  average,  13  to  14.5  years;  C+,  high  average,  14.5 
to  16  years;  B,  superior,  16  to  18  years;  A,  very  superior, 
18  +  years. 

'The  need  of  some  means  of  excluding  the  unfit  that  shall 
be  more  effective  than  past  measures  is  forced  upon  us  by 
the  revelations  of  the  Army  examinations.    In  our  Army 
360,000  men  of  foreign  birth  were  put  through  the  test, 
Kvith  the  startling  result  that  45  per  cent  were  found  to  be 
below  11  years  of  mental  age  and  were  grouped  in  the  in- 
ferior and  very  inferior  classes.    This  fact  is  startling 
enough,  but  fades  into  insignificance  when  we  interpret  it 
ilas  relating  to  the  countries  from  which  most  of  our  im- 
I migrants  come.   The  table  given  below  is  self-explanatory. 
K(See  Memoirs  of  National  Academy  of  Sciences,  Vol.  XV.) 
I    "It  will  be  seen  that  the  percentage  of  foreign-born  who 
•fare  found  to  be  in  the  D  and  D-  classes,  with  a  mental  age 
of  less  than  11  years,  is  45.6  per  cent.    Of  the  360,000  re- 
cruits of  foreign  birth  upon  whose  examination  these  fig- 


234  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


A 

B 

C  + 

C 

C  — 

D 

D  — 

Lf  and 

XJ  — 

Aai 

JD 

P.ct. 

P.C 

Poland   

0.5 

3.1 

19.5 

7.3 

43.5 

26.4 

69.9 

Italy   

0.2 

.6 

2.3 

24.4 

9.1 

40.0 

23.4 

63.4 

.4 

2.3 

4.8 

22.1 

10.5 

40.0 

20.4 

60.4 

2."* 

2.1 

2.1 

36.7 

15.7 

35.1 

8.5 

43.6 

2.1 

Turkey   

.4 

3.0 

5.7 

34.4 

14.7 

30.4 

11.6 

41.6 

3.4 

1.2 

2.9 

8.4 

29.0 

18.6 

26.2 

13.2 

39.4 

4.1 

Austria   

1.7 

1.7 

6.7 

32.3 

20.0 

27.5 

10.0 

37.5 

3.4 

.6 

3.5 

8.9 

36.0 

25.9 

21.8 

3.8 

25.6 

4.1 

Belgium   

.8 

11.6 

39.2 

24.0 

18.6 

5.4 

24.0 

i 

3.3 

7.2 

15.4 

25.8 

28.4 

15.4 

4.1 

19.5 

10.£ 

Sweden  

1.3 

3.0 

12.6 

37.0 

26.8 

17.1 

2.3 

19.4 

4.S 

3.3 

5.0 

17.6 

31.8 

27.8 

11.7 

3.3 

15.0 

8.S 

Scotland  

4.8 

8.2 

25.4 

19.2 

28.8 

10.9 

2.7 

13.6 

13.( 

.6 

4.8 

16.2 

32.4 

33.0 

12.8 

.6 

13.4 

Holland   

5.0 

5.7 

21.4 

25.0 

33.7 

8.5 

.7 

9.2 

loi 

5.6 

14.1 

24.0 

12.4 

35.4 

6.0 

2.7 

8.7 

19.7 

Average  foreign 

Average  white 
draft   

1  1 
1 .1 

9  0 

1  .o 

ifi 

Ov.O 

14  S 

4.1 

8.0 

15.2 

23.8 

25.0 

17.0 

7.1 

24.1 

12.1 

ures  are  based,  164,160  were  of  such  low  intelligence  tha 
I  they  graded  in  occupation  lower  than  the  common  laborer 
and  were  those  whose  work  required  constant  supervision 
In  the  Army  they  were  not  considered  to  be  good  soldie 
material,  but  were  largely  assigned  to  pioneer  battalion 
for  work  that  required  muscular  rather  than  menta 
strength. 

''Equally  interesting  and  suggestive  is  the  low  percentage* 
of  the  higher  intelligence  group  of  A  and  B,  reaching  only 
4  per  cent.  This  group  shows  the  small  percentage  of  in 
telligent  people  of  foreign  birth  as  compared  with  the  per 
centage  of  12.1  found  in  the  general  white  draft,  composec 
of  all  recruits  in  the  Army  except  the  colored  races.  Cer 
tainly  it  is  evident  that  the  number  of  immigrants  capabl( 
of  understanding  the  duties  and  obligations,  as  well  as  th( 
opportunity  for  progress,  which  our  citizenship  entails  is 
alarmingly  small. 

'Tt  will  also  be  found  that  immigration  from  eastern  anc 
southern  Europe  is  more  undesirable  than  from  other  parts 
of  that  continent.    We  can  gauge  the  desirability  of  im- 


BACK  TO  1890 


235 


(ligrants  by  the  relative  proportion  of  those  in  A  and  B 
iasses,  and  by  the  number  in  D  and  D  minus.  We  can  not 
sriously  be  opposed  to  immigrants  from  Great  Britain, 
[oUand,  Canada,  Germany,  Denmark  and  Scandinavia, 
''here  the  proportion  of  the  higher  groups  is  above  4  per 
!snt  and  reaching  a  maximum  of  19  per  cent,  as  in  the  case 
f  England.  We  can,  however,  strenuously  object  to  im- 
migration from  Italy,  with  its  proportion  at  the  lower  end 
f  the  scale  of  63.4  per  cent;  of  Russia  with  60.4;  of  Poland 
1/ith  69.9;  of  Greece  with  43.6;  and  of  Turkey  with  41.6 
)er  cent.  The  Slavic  and  Latin  countries  show  a  marked 
lontrast  in  intelligence  with  the  western  and  northern ' 
European  group.  ... 

"As  a  result  of  our  previous  negligence  in  selection  of  im- 
inigrants  we  have  populated  this  country  with  hordes  of 
[he  unfit,  who  are  unadaptable  to  our  requirements  of 
itizenship.  The  census  of  1920  reveals  that  out  of  a  total 
Ivhite  population  of  94,820,915  the  number  born  in  foreign 
countries  was  13,712,754.  If  we  apply  to  this  latter  number 
the  ratings  as  to  intelligence  found  by  the  psychological 
lest  in  the  Army,  14.8  per  cent  of  foreign-born  being  in  D 
ninus  class,  the  number  would  be  2,029,484.  Those  rated 
f&  class  D  (30.1  per  cent)  would  number  3,927,538.  This 
Drings  the  total  of  these  two  classes,  who  are  rated  as  hav- 
ing a  mental  age  of  11  years  or  less,  to  5,957,026.  It  would 
be  interesting  if  there  were  some  figures  showing  what  pro- 
portion of  this  large  number  took  some  part  in  industry  and 
production,  and  what  proportion  were  dependent,  criminal, 
or  worthless;  but  there  are  no  present  adequate  means  of 
determining  these  facts.  The  presumption  being  that  the 
ligher  the  intellectual  status  the  more  efficient  the  human 
machine,  the  inference  follows  that  this  large  portion  of 
pur  population  are  little  fitted  to  work  or  vote,  and  tend  to 
become  burdens  upon  society,  either  as  dependents  or  mis- 
demeanants. .  .  . 

"We  are  being  swamped  with  the  offscourings  of  Europe. 
Those  at  the  lower  end  of  the  intellectual  scale  have 
brought  to  us  their  social  customs,  their  language,  their 
jpolitical  ideals.   They  cannot  assimilate  our  ideals.  Their 


236  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


adaptability  to  their  new  surroundings  is  limited.  Thei  - 
cannot  become  citizens  in  the  highest  meaning  of  that  wonj  "■ 
They  cannot  enter  into  the  spirit  of  American  life.  Thei  ■ 
add  little  except  numbers  to  the  body  politic.  They  add  t- 
the  burdens  of  State  and  municipality,  and  render  more  diff  j  - 
cult  and  complex  the  administration  of  law  and  order.  .  .  i 

''We  do  not  need  the  ignorant,  the  mentally  feeble,  thi 
moron.  We  already  suffer  from  the  presence  of  too  man;! 
whose  low  mentality  leads  them  into  pauperism,  crime,  se| 
offenses,  and  dependency.  .  .  .  We  must  forget  those  sen  I 
timental  by-words,  like  'a  refuge  for  the  oppressed  of  othe^ 
nations,'  unless  we  want  to  be  oppressed  by  the  burden  o( 
ignorance  and  degeneracy  which  such  a  catchword  invites,  i 

Another  effort  to  use  the  army  tests  to  explain  the  highe 
scores  of  the  older  immigrants  was  made  by  C.  C.  Brig 
ham.^*^   In  addition  to  vigorous  criticism  from  K.  Young,- 
M.  Hexter  and  A.  Myerson     launched  an  attack  againsi 
the  army  tests  but  especially  against  the  scientific  charac 
ter  of  Professor  Brigham's  work.    They  accuse  him  o\ 
rank  prejudice  and  propagandizing  intent.    They  criticiz(|| 
the  argument  that  the  tests  measured  native  intelligencJI 
and  claim  that  the  speed  factor  was  a  handicap  to  the  forjl 
eign  born  and  that  with  increased  length  of  residence  thJi 
gain  on  the  Alpha  test  is  greater  than  the  gain  on  the  BetJI 
test,  thus  showing  the  influence  of  education  and  familiaril 
ity  with  the  culture  of  America.  ||| 

Another  attack  against  the  arguments  of  the  advocateijl 
of  restriction  who  believe  that  the  ''old"  immigration  ill 
more  easily  assimilated  and  hence  is  more  desirable  waf- 
made  by  W.  Bagley.^^  He  argued  that  a  high  correlatior 
exists  between  the  quality  of  the  educational  systems  ir 
given  areas  and  the  test  achievements  of  men  from  the  cor- 
responding localities.   Thus,  he  claims  that  it  is  educatior 

^  Brigham,  C.  C,  A  Study  of  American  Intelligence. 
**Younff,  K,  Science,  Vol.  LVII,  No.  1484,  June  8,  1923,  pp.  660-670. 
Hexter,  M.,  and  Myerson,  A.,  "A  StAidy  in  Probable  Error,"  Menta\ 
11  y (dene,  Vol.  VIII,  January,  1924. 

Barley,  W.,  "The  Army  Tests  and  the  Pro-Nordic  Propaganda,"  Ed\ 
Rev.,  April,  1924. 


BACK  TO  1890 


237 


ather  than  pure  native  ability  that  is  measured  by  mental 
^ests.  He  believes,  therefore,  that  in  general  in  view  of  the 
i)ossibility  of  unfair  sampling  and  of  the  influence  of  cul- 
tural factors  of  the  test  scores,  the  superiority  of  the  Nordic 
Intelligence  must  be  regarded  as  unproved. 
;  As  already  indicated,  very  few  of  the  advocates  of  re- 
itriction  argue  that  the  Nordic  races  are  "superior"  to  those 
)f  Southern  or  Eastern  Europe  and  hence  most  of  them 
;rant  the  soundness  of  such  argument  as  that  set  forth  by 
Jagley.  Most  advocates  of  restriction  will  concede  that 
iVofessor  Brigham,  in  his  study  referred  to  above,  over- 
ooked  the  sharp  differentiation  between  the  intelligence  of 
'immigrant  groups"  and  the  intelligence  of  "races."  They 
irgue,  however,  that  the  lower  scores  on  the  intelligence 
;ests  by  the  more  recent  immigrants  is  a  fact,  although  they 
joncede  that  the  reasons  must  be  sought  iji  factors  related 
:o  the  passage  of  time  and  virtually  unrelated  to  race.^^ 
rhey  contend,  howevet,  that  the  existence  of  such  factors 
justifies  the  restriction  of  the  types  or  groups  of  immigrants 
j^rhich  have  come  from  Southern  and  Eastern  Europe  in 
recent  years. 

I  C.  Kirkpatrick  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  studies  deal- 
ing with  the  children  of  immigrants  in  the  schools  are  far 


re  significant  than  the  results  of  the  army  tests  given 
to  adults.  He  points  out  that  the  studies  of  Young,^^  Mur- 
dock,^^  Feingold,^^  Brown, Berry,^^  Pitner,^^  and  Col- 

"For  an  excellent  analysis  of  this  view  see  Neifeld,  M,  R.,  "The  Race 
jEIypothesis,"  American  Journal  of  Sociology,  Vol.  32,  pp.  423-432  (Novem- 
ber, 1926). 

"Kirkpatrick,  C,  ''Selective  Immigration,"  Journal  of  Social  Forces, 
Mar.,  1925. 

^  Young,  K.,  "Mental  Differences  in  Certain  Immigrant  Groups,"  Univer- 
nty  of  Oregon  Publication,  Vol.  I,  No.  XI,  July,  1922. 

^  Murdock,  K.,  ''Race  Differences  in  New  York  City,"  School  and  Society, 
|XI,  1920. 

"Feingold,  G.  A.,  "Intelligence  of  the  First  Generation  of  Immigrant 
jGroups,"  Jr.  Ed.  Psych.,  Vol.  XV,  No.  2,  p.  65  ff.,  Feb.,  1924. 
['"BrowTi,  G.  L.,  "Intelligence  as  Related  to  Nationality,"  Jr.  Ed.  Re- 
search, Apr.,  1922.  pp.  324-327. 

"  Berry,  C.  S..  "The  Classification  by  Tests  of  Intelligence  of  Ten  Thou- 
sand First  Grade  Pupils,"  Jr.  Ed.  Research,  Oct.,  1922. 

j  "Pinter,  R.,  and  Keller,  R.,  "Intelligence  Tests  of  Foreign  Children,"  Jr. 
Ed.  Psych.,  Aug.,  1922,  p.  214  ff. 


238  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


vin,^*  for  the  most  part  show  decided  differences  in  tL 
test  achievement  of  children  of  different  national  group 
although  certain  of  the  writers  are  inclined  to  feel  that  th 
language  factor  may  have  played  a  part,  especially  whe 
comparisons  are  made  with  American  children  of  Americar  [ 
born  parents. 

He  then  states,  "In  general  the  showing  of  the  recent  in: 
migrant  stocks  is  unfavorable,  although  there  are  several 
exceptions.  While  important  differences  in  the  innatj 
qualities  of  different  national  groups  may,  and  very  likell 
do  exist,  it  must  be  pointed  out  that  individual  selection  ij 
better  than  group  selection  and  it  is  this  simple  fact  tha| 
was  ignored  by  the  enactors  of  the  recent  immigratio 
law."^o 

Referring  to  the  Act  of  1924  and  the  evidence  on  which  i, 
is  based  Woolston  wrote  thus:^^  "Instead  of  specifying  thj 
qualities  considered  desirable  the  law  favors  those  natioHi 
whose  representatives  we  like,  and  debars  others  by  genera 
provisions.  It  seems  to  me  that  such  procedure  involves 
threefold  error. 

"First,  it  disregards  the  wide  range  of  individual  diffeE 
ences  among  the  members  of  any  group.  ... 

"In  the  second  place,  such  generalization  tends  to  confus 
racial  traits  and  cultural  development.  .  .  . 

"Confusion  is  worse  confounded  when  both  physical  anv 
mental  development  are  identified  with  country  of  birth.J 

Bernard  has  written  thus  on  the  application  of  mentaj 
tests  to  racial  groups.^^  "The  intelligence  thus  measure^ 
is  only  the  acquired  intelligence  within  the  limits  of  ini 
herited  capacity  and  not  the  inherited  capacity  itself.  ThI 
degree  to  which  the  actual  indices  of  intelligence  measures 
for  a  racial  group  approximates  to  the  actual  inherited 
capacity  will  depend  on  the  environmental  factors  of  hom| 

^  Colvin,  S.  S.,  and  Allen,  R.  D.,  "Mental  Tests  and  Linguistic  Ability, 
Jr.  Ed.  Psych.,  Vol.  XIV,  Jan,  1923.  p.  1  ff. 

^Sce  also  article  by  Mead,  M.,  "The  Methodology  of  Racial  Testing, 
Vol.  31  (1925-6),  Amcr.  Journal  of  Sociology,  pp.  657-667. 

*^  Woolston,  H.,  "Wanted — An  Immigration  Policy,"  Journal  of  Socio 
Forces,  Vol.  2  (1923-4),  pp.  666^70.  , 
Bernard,  Introduction  to  Social  Psychology,  p.  224. 


BACK  TO  1890 


239 


training,  cultural  contacts,  motivation,  opportunity,  etc., 
available  to  the  members  of  the  group."  *^ 

From  our  discussion  it  seems  possible  to  harmonize  the 
views  of  those  who  favor  restriction  of  immigration  with 
the  views  of  those  who  deny  that  one  race  is  superior  to 
another.  The  advocates  of  restriction  can  and  should  grant 
[that  some  of  their  number  drew  unfortunate  conclusions 
from  the  army  tests.  Yet  it  does  not  follow  from  granting 
the  psychic  equality  of  the  races  that  our  political  opinions 
must  change  or  that  restriction  of  immigration  is  not  jus- 
tifiable. To  disapprove  the  superiority  of  one  race  over 
another  does  not  eliminate  the  necessity  for  the  restriction 
of  immigrants  with  a  different  cultural  background.  In 
other  words,  we  have  had  to  adopt  political  devices  that 
will  roughly  admit  immigrants  in  proportion  to  our  ability 
to  assimilate  those  with  a  different  cultural  development. 

It  would  seem  then  that  the  value  of  the  army  tests  is 
to  be  found  in  the  evidence  presented  of  the  differences  in 
Cultural  development  of  the  ^^old"  and  the  ^'new'^  immigra- 
ition  of  today.   On  this  basis  it  would  seem  that  the  "old'* 
immigration  is  more  desirable  than  the  ''new",  being  more 
easily  assimilated  because  of  a  cultural  background  more 
ife  'nearly  akin  to  our  own.^^  Whether  this  view  be  accepted  or 
not  as  being  sound,  yet  it  must  be  conceded  that  these  army 
31  /tests  had  great  weight  with  Congress  and  helped  to  crystal- 
?lize  the  sentiment  that  finally  resulted  in  the  enactment 
of  the  Immigration  Act  of  1924. 
'     Dr.  Harry  H.  Laughlin,  of  the  Eugenics  Record  Office  of 
the  Carnegie  Institute  of  Washington,  who  was  appointed 
T  texpert  eugenics  agent  of  the  House  Committee  on  Immigra- 
nt ^tion,  studied  the  biological  aspects  of  immigration  and  made 
an  ''expert"  analysis  of  the  metal  and  the  dross  in  America's 
biodern  melting  pot.   His  report  to  the  House  Committee, 

il?  I  *^  For  further  references  see  Grant,  The  Passing  of  the  Great  Race; 
Boas,  The  Mind  of  Primitive  Man;  Kroeber  and  Waterman,  Source  Book 
in  Anthropology,  chapters  15-21 ;  Park  and  Miller,  Old  World  Traits 
Transplanted ;  Fairchild.  Immigration,  Ch.  XX.    A  recent  and  interesting 

&J  htudy  is  N.  D.  M.  Hirsch's  ''A  Study  of  Natio-Racial  Mental  Differences." 
See  especially  pp.  393-8  (1P26V 
**See  Fairchild,  op.  cit.,  pp.  451-453. 


240 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


November  21,  1922,  had  such  great  influence  that  it  i| 
ofen  considered  the  principal  basis  of  the  Act  of  1924.  I  < 
is  necessary,  therefore,  to  consider  it  in  some  detail. 

An  institutional  survey  was  made  to  secure  the  fact| 
concerning  particular  types  of  social  degeneracy  or  in  j  c 
adequacy  of  the  different  racial  stocks,  or  nativity  groups*  \i 
Having  secured  the  facts  in  relation  to  the  number  of  per-j 
sons  of  each  race  or  nativity  group  found  in  custodial  ini 
stitutions  and  listed  under  a  specific  diagnosis,  and  havingj 
previously  worked  out  an  expected  or  quota  number  foi 
each  such  diagnostic  and  racial  group,  the  next  step  was  tcj 
compare  the  number  expected  with  the  number  found.*' 
In  making  such  comparisons  the  divisor  was  always  the 
number  expected,  or  the  quota,  and  the  dividend  wastj 
always  the  number  actually  found  by  the  survey.  Thej 
quotient  was  the  quota  fulfillment  which  was  expressed  ini 
terms  of  per  cent.   Thus,  if  the  quota  fulfillment  of  a  par- 
ticular racial  and  diagnostic  group  is  100  per  cent  in  the. 
table  below,  it  means  that  for  this  particular  race,  in  refer-; 
ence  to  this  particular  type  of  degeneracy,  the  numberi! 
found  is  exactly  the  same  as  the  quota  or  the  number  ex-| 
pected.    If,  however,  twice  as  many  were  found  as  were 
expected,  then  the  quota  fulfillment  is  200  per  cent.  If, 
again,  only  one-half  as  many  were  found  as  were  expected,! 
the  quota  fulfillment  is  50  per  cent.    Thus,  regardless  ofl 
the  absolute  numbers  in  the  different  racial  and  nativity 
groups  in  the  whole  population  of  the  United  States,  it  I 
was  possible  to  standardize  and  to  compare  the  relative  ex-i 
treme  degeneracy  of  a  specific  type  among  the  several  racial  li 
and  nativity  groups.  i 

To  be  specific,  according  to  the  census  of  1910  there  wereij 
1,343,125  persons  of  Italian  birth  in  the  United  States. 
This  group  constituted  1.46  per  cent  of  the  whole  popula- 
tion of  the  United  States  at  that  time.  Consequently,  if  i! 
the  Italians  in  the  United  States  were  equally  as  susceptible 
as  all  other  nativity  groups  to  insanity,  of  the  type  which 
we  institutionalize  in  this  country,  we  should  expect  1.46 

*Sce  Chapter  II,  pp.  55-56,  for  the  use  of  such  a  method  prior  to  1850 
by  Senator  Clemens  of  Alabama. 


I  BACK  TO  1890  24l 

')er  cent  of  the  inmates  in  all  our  hospitals  for  the  insane  in 
^he  United  States  to  be  of  Italian  birth.  In  the  93  hospitals 
)'or  the  insane  which  were  covered  by  Dr.  Laughlin's  sur- 
rey there  were  84,106  inmates.  The  Italian  quota  was  1.46 
oer  cent  of  84,106,  or  1,228,  which  was  the  number  to  be 
ixpected.  The  actual  survey  found  1,938  persons  of  Italian 
Dirth  in  the  hospitals  for  the  insane,  which  was  2.30  per  cent 
.nstead  of  the  expected  1.46  per  cent.  Dividing  the  number 
found  by  the  number  expected,  the  quota  fulfillment  was 
Pound  to  be  157.53  per  cent,  which  means  that  the  Italians 
fulfilled  their  quota  a  little  more  than  one  and  a  half  times 
in  contributing  inmates  to  the  hospitals  for  the  insane. 

Granting  the  soundness  of  such  a  method,  for  the  sake  of 
Argument,  the  logical  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  such 
statistics  would  seem  to  be  that  the  differences  in  institu- 
tional ratios,  by  races  and  nativity  groups,  found  by  these 
studies  represent  real  differences  in  social  values,  which 
represent,  in  turn,  according  to  Dr.  Laughlin,  real  differences 
in  the  inborn  values  of  the  family  stocks  from  which  the 
particular  inmates  have  sprung.  If  this  be  true,  then  it 
would  seem  that  the  advocates  of  restriction  were  and  are 
[right  in  taking  into  consideration  the  stock  from  which  the 
immigrant  springs  when  drafting  our  restrictive  laws  on 
limmigration. 

This  explanation  of  the  methods  used  to  get  the  results 
'indicated  in  the  table  on  page  242  should  enable  us  to 
I  properly  interpret  the  facts  stated  therein. 

In  the  summary  of  all  types  of  socially  inadequates  the 
following  facts  were  emphasized  by  the  restrictionists: 

(1)  the  per  cent  for  the  total  native  white  was  91.89, — 
less  than  what  was  expected. 

(2)  For  the  total  foreign  stock  it  was  125.79  per  cent. 

(3)  For  northwestern  Europe  it  was  130.42, per  cent, 

(4)  while  for  Southern  and  Eastern  Europe  it  was  143.24 
per  cent. 

The  percentage  for  northwestern  Europe  was  as  high  as 
it  is  due  to  the  Irish  immigration,  whose  quota  was  found 
I  to  be  208.84.   The  quotas  for  all  of  the  other  countries  that 
!  constitute  Northwestern  Europe  were  much  lower  than  the 


O  00  3  2  D 


COOOO(MOOIr-00(MCOCO 
<MCOeOi-(OOi-Hr-ICOlO 
r-li-lr-li-((Mi-lr-(i-Hr-l 


w  o 

<4J  O 
D,T-I 


r-l  IM  <M  to  rH  (M 


*-2 

<a  O 


00  Ol  it5      O  O 


^-oooit~ineDr-io<Neo 

<N  O  <N  O  lO  i-J  t--  O  05 
rHC<»<Nt-rH       T-l  (M  i-l 


rH  r-(  0> 
05  <N 
U5  CO  Tli 


1) 


Cl,rH 


M<  05  (M  00  <0 
to  <M  iH  1>  rH 
CO  iH  iH 


O  CO  O 
lO  rH  O 
CO 


rH  (>q  00  CO  OS 

CO  lO  05  lO  Tt< 

1>  O  O  (m'  U5 
lO  M  rH 


CO  C<5  OOt^ 


•  00  O  • 

•  CO  o  • 
!    d  '. 

CO 


l>0>-*(Ml-0-*C0(MlOi 
l>iH05t^C0lMrHrH<Ml 
to  iH  rH       IM  rH  rH 


00  to 
lO  rH 
00 


Oi  (M  O  O 
rH  if5  O  rH  O 

iH  tOflO  »fj 


lOiOt^tOrHtOOOiHTtiai 
050005050rHCOt~tOlO 

o6cot^eor-iio>6dcot-^ 
05ooco-*eoeoeoto(N(M 

iH  rH 


lO  Oi  iH  o 

iH  00  ifi  d 

^  rH  00  to 


irti>t~c<i05'>*coas  * 

OCOtOtOtOOiH-*3 

tdoot^coi-it-^ooio  » 

(>JtOt-05lOCOiOtD  II 
iH       (M  (M  (M  CO  iH  ") 


3  B 


.  >> 


a,i-i 


to  ^  to 
d  d  d 
0000  o 


I  (M  rH  t»  iH 


■^t^COtOOrHOil^ 
CO  CO  -"Jl  rH 


tH  rH                 rH  rH  (M 

05  O  to       00  C55       -"It  CO  to  rH       CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  O  CO  tO  O  lO  tO  O  (N  O  CO 

to  r-     iH        oi     CO  00 »c  CO     CO  (N  ift  10  to  o  oic^iior-oco 

ooc^ui     td(N    t^o6o6d>o-«i5corHodd  oot-^r-iio  iri-^iNco'doo 

TjioiCT>iOOt^C35tOiOtO  ' 


^-  o  o 


_J  U5 

o  00 

rH  <M 


00  lO  00  rH  ^  , 
iH  iH  iH  Tjl       C<l  ' 


01 01 

iH  d 

00  (M 


CO       O  iH  00  in  to  GO  <M  O  O  O  00  o 

CO       O  Tl(  TJJ  10       IXM  o  O  O  00  iH  O 

d'^<HT)?t>t^c-jddd  iHtod 

(M  CO  iH  O  00       00  lO  lO  00  0000 

iH  CO  CO  CO  m  CO  iH  eO  CO  iH  iH 


<:ooc^aoocoooo>' 

eOt-iHiHOOOCOC^( 
iH  rH  rH  rH  iH  i 


OtOlOrHCOOO'OiHooOl  'OO 

iHCO-if-^OOOtOOOOSt^  Oi"^. 

10  co'  iH  to  H<  d  d  CO  d  CO  ^  o  iH  CO 

»O-<HC0C0O>O500t-tOtO  tO'^''^^ 

COCOr-ICOi-lrHtHCO  (mC^COiO 


rH  CO  O  iH  CO  lO  < 

05  to  CO  ic  to  1 

CO  rH  CO  CO  rH 


K  o 


rHiHOOt-tOtOOlOtOtO  CO-'i'COO 

t-OOJCOrHUOOrHrH-^  OCOCOO 

iotDo6i>o6ddddod  eoioooin 

rH  CO  iH  CO       rH  CO  CO  rH  CO  CO -"ii 


tj  o 
V.  d 

0^0 


a>  rH  to       t~  r-  CO  I>       t-  CO  rH  CO  O  O  00  O  O  CO 

tO'^OrHCO'CrHtOtOtO  OSCOCOO  O'OOOCO 

t-^  d  ^ d  06 1>  to  d  d  codcod  d  d  d  d  co 

CO  CO  CO       CO  CO  to  rH  rH  CO  CO  CO  O  Irt  CO  CO  CO  CO 


■JS  CO 

(h  O) 

■    s  ^ 


0)  -tj  ai 


J3  C 

o 
0x1 


.       O  O)  +-> 


be  1^ 

•"9 


o  O  i3 

o  >-  .2 

"Si 


1^1  s|- 

3^      es  Sc. 


«5  £  ft^^. 
>  i  O  rt 


,3  •  bccn  ; 


rt  3  o 

Wk5  cc  -< 


1      U5  ^  t»  00  0> 


24? 


BACK  TO  1890 


243 


quotas  of  the  countries  that  make  up  Southern  and  Eastern 
Europe.  These  facts,  together  with  those  revealed  by  the 
;able  below,  seem  to  indicate,  according  to  Dr.  Laughlin, 
that  the  inmiigrants  from  Northwestern  Europe  are  far 
more  desirable  than  the  ^'new'^  immigrants  from  Southern 
Mid  Eastern  Europe. 

The  table  below  shows,  by  comparison  of  quota  fulfill- 
naents  the  relation  between  the  rate  of  incidence  of  each 
major  type  of  social  inadequacy,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
time  of  immigration  of  the  immigrant  stock  on  the  other. 


Comparative  Quota  Fulfillments  in  Inadequacies  of  the  Older  and  More 
Recent  Immigrant  Stocks,  Excluding  Living  Immigrants. 


Older  immigrant 
stock :  Native  born, 
both  parents  native 
bom 

More  recent  immi- 
grant stock : 

Native  born,  one 
or  both  parents 
foreign  bom 

107.70 

173.75 

73.27 

107.03 

81.84 

98.88  * 

93.05 

186.02 

89.40 

122.98 

6.  Blind   

155.64 

64.90 

7.  Deaf  

134.20 

80.21 

8.  Deformed   

66.21 

294.96 

104.09 

101.91 

10.  All  types  

84.33 

111^69 

~i 

The  facts  provided  by  this  table  seem  to  indicate  that: 
i  (a)  in  so  far  as  (6)  blindness  and  (7)  deafness  are  con- 
icerned,  recent  immigrant  stocks  are  much  sounder  than  the 
older; 

(b)  in  (9)  dependency  on  the  State  the  two  time-groups 
are  about  even; 

(c)  in  reference  to  (1)  feeble-mindedness,  (2)  insanity, 
(3)  crime,  (4)  epilepsy,  (5)  tuberculosis,  and  (8)  deform- 
ity, the  older  immigrant  stocks  are  vastly  sounder  than  the 
recent. 

The  charts  on  page  244  taken  together  indicate  the  degree 
of  ''quota  fulfillment"  by  each  of  the  groups  of  immigrants 
studied  in  the  above  report.^® 

These  three  charts  are  taken  from  the  Survey  for  Dec.  15,  1923, 


„      100  •f* 

1 

in 

1 

1 1 

1 

All  NoHhwfist  Europe 
CD  All  Southeast  tonope 

I  Insaniiv 
Z  Crime 

3  Feeblemindedness 

4  DependencY 

5  Tuberculosis 

7  AU  defecia  together 


A 


ii 


li 


Lll 


12  3  4  5  6? 

Scandinavia 


12  3  4567 


12  3  4  5  6  7 
Russia  and 
Finland 


123  4  567  1234567 

Austria -Hungarf  BalKan* 


uJL 


h 


ii 


I     3  4  S  6  7 

Whites  born  of 
Hntive  Parents 


•  2  3456  7        t2345  6  7        12  345  6  7        12  3  4-5  6  7 

Nesrots       Creiit  Britain       Ireland  Ccrmant 

HUMAN  WRECKAGE  IN  THE  QUOTAS 


These  charts  indicate  the  relative  contribution  by  each  of  the  numeri- 
cally important  groups  of  immigrants,  studied  by  Laughlin,  to  the  population 
of  institutions  for  the  defective  and  dependent.  The  column  for  dependency 
among  Irish  immigrants  is  limited  by  the  depth  of  the  chart ;  it  should  run 
one  inch  higher.  The  upper  chart  compares  all  the  groups  from  Northwest 
Europe  with  all  those  from  Southeast  Europe  for  each  of  the  seven  cate- 
gories of  disability.   The  charts  are  based  on  the  Laughlin  data. 

244 


BACK  TO  1890 


245 


The  classification  below  will  throw  more  light  on  the 


subject: 


Insanity 

1.  Ireland 

2.  Russia-Finland 

3.  Scandinavia 

Crime 

1.  Balkans 

2.  Italy 

3.  Russia-Finland 

Fee  b  le-mindedness 

1.  Russia-Finland 

2.  Great  Britain 

3.  Italy  and  Balkans 


Dependency 

1.  Ireland 

2.  Great  Britain 

3.  Balkans 

Tuberculosis 

1.  Balkans 

2.  Scandinavia 

3.  Russia-Finland 

Epilepsy 

1.  Great  Britain 

2.  Russia-Finland 

3.  Ireland 


1.  Ireland. 


All  Defects  Together 
2.  Russia-Finland. 


3.  Balkans. 


It  is  of  interest  to  note  that  no  nation  that  supplies  the 
*'old''  immigration  comes  under  "crinie".  That  dependency 
is  high  among  the  ''old"  immigration  would  seem  to  be 
proof  of  its  inability  to  compete  successfully  with  the 
''new"  immigration  and  would  seem  to  establish  the  point 
that  even  on  very  low  wages,  due  to  the  law  standards  of 
living,  there  is  little  dependency  among  the  "new"  immi- 
grants. While  dependency  is  bad,  yet  under  existing 
circumstances  low  standards  of  living  are  worse,  due  to 
detrimental  effects  on  American  labor  as  well  as  for  social 
reasons. 

Concerning  pauperism  the  following  table  from  Dr. 
Laughlin's  report  presents  some  striking  and  possibly  sig- 
nificant figures  of  the  relative  incidence  of  the  tendency 
throughout  those  States  of  the  Union  where  the  mass  of 
our  foreign  and  unassimilated  elements  are  located: 


Native-born 

Foreign-born 

paupers  per  100,000 

paupers  per  100,000 

native  born 

foreign  born 

population 

population 

New  England   

127 

314 

Middle  Atlantic  

78 

241 

East  North  Central  

80 

278 

246  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


In  this  connection  it  is  interesting  to  turn  to  the  highly 
significant  conclusions  of  Doctors  May  and  Pollock,  quoted 
from  a  New  York  hospital  bulletin  of  April  12,  1912,  ab- . 
stracted  by  Dr.  C.  B.  Davenport  and  quoted  by  Dr.  Laugh-  ( 
lin  in  his  testimony  in  April,  1920,  before  the  Committeei 
on  Immigration  and  Naturalization  in  the  House  of  Rep-^ 
resentatives  of  the  United  States: 

The  conclusions  to  which  Doctors  May  and  Pollock  have  I 
come  are: 

That  the  number  of  foreign-born  insane  in  the  State  hos- 
pitals is  steadily  increasing.  | 

That  the  foreign-born  population  of  the  State  contrib- 1 
utes  a  relatively  much  larger  number  of  patients  to  theij 
State  hospital  than  the  native  born.  i 

That  although  the  rate  of  insanity  among  the  Italians  is<i 
low,  this  nationality  contributes  an  unusually  large  propor- 
tion of  patients  to  the  State  hospitals  for  the  criminal  in-* 
sane. 

That  the  average  total  hospital  residence  of  the  foreign- 
born  insane  patients  is  9.85  years. 

That  the  first  admission  of  1911  shows  a  rate  of  insanity 
V  22  times  as  great  among  the  foreign-born  population  of 
the  State  as  among  the  native  born. 

That  the  rate  of  insanity  among  the  foreign-born  of  New 
York  City  is  2.5  times  that  of  the  native  born. 

That  about  one-fifth  of  the  foreign-born  first  admissions 
of  1911  entered  hospitals  before  having  been  in  the  State 
five  years. 

That  the  larger  part  of  the  immigrants  who  are  admitted 
to  the  State  hospitals  within  five  years  after  entering  come 
from  Austria-Hungary,  Italy,  and  Russia,  and  the  largest 
percentages  of  foreign-born  illiterates  are  found  among  the 
same  nationalities. 

Dr.  Wm.  J.  Mayo  said  in  an  address  at  the  Boston  City 
Hospital,  November  14,  1923,  before  the  new  act  was 
passed : 

'The  alien  is  a  public  health  problem,  just  as  he  is  a 
social  problem,  and  the  pubfic  hospital  sees  the  dark  side 


BACK  TO  1890 


247 


3f  this  picture.  In  the  American  of  several  generations, 
he  doctrine  of  moral  obligation  has  become  thoroughly  in- 
rained.  In  Southern  Europe  the  Oriental  point  of  view 
more  or  less  prevails  that  no  obligation  which  is  not  en- 
orcible  exists.  The  laxity  of  the  conduct  of  the  law  in  the 
nited  States,  the  slowness  of  Justice,  and  the  extraordi- 
ary  latitude  allowed  the  offender  against  the  community, 
ive  the  criminal  more  than  a  sporting  chance  to  escape 
punishment  and  have  exposed  the  administrators  of  the 
law  to  the  contempt  of  the  class  of  offenders  brought  to  us 
in  recent  years  by  immigration.  And  these  are  the  people 
with  whom  our  public  hospitals  are  overcrowded.  Our 
'courts  have  been  filled  with  alien  law-breakers  until  the 
people  have  arisen  in  righteous  indignation  and  reduced  the 
number  of  immigrants  to  three  per  cent  of  the  number  al- 
ready here  from  each  country.  If  the  percentage  system  of 
immigration  in  effect  in  1890  could  be  reverted  to,  as  has 
been  advised,  a  much  more  desirable  class  of  citizens  would 
be  brought  from  the  countries  that  gave  birth  to  the  United 
States  and  its  concept  of  government." 

This  report  of  Dr.  Laughlin's  thus  claims  to  prove  that 
the  biological  laboratory  is  a  far  more  valuable  basis  for  the 
study  of  immigration  than  are  the  improvisations  of  the 
sentimentalists.  He  argued  that  our  alien  population  from 
northern  Europe  contributes  far  less  in  proportion  to  our 
''socially  inadequate,'^  whether  the  inadequacies  be  innate 
or  not,  than  does  that  from  Central  and  Mediterranean 
Europe.  His  report  thus  substantiated  the  conviction 
that  was  becoming  more  and  more  fixed  in  the  minds  of 
those  favoring  restriction  that  immigration  from  Northern 
and  Western  Europe,  which  for  want  of  a  better  or  more 
precise  term  is  usually  referred  to  as  ^'Nordic,"  furnishes 
the  best  materials  for  building  the  American  nation.  By 
admitting  strains  far  removed  from  the  '^Nordic"  peoples, 
in  race,  in  history,  and  in  cultural  ideals,  the  advocates  of 
restriction  argued  that  the  United  States  has  already 
tended  to  become  in  certain  sections  like  Central  Europe, 
a  collection  of  unassimilable  blocs,  with  all  the  social  and 


248  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 

political  problems  that  necessarily  follow.    Dr.  Laughlin 
investigations,  therefore,  supported  the  contention  of  th( 
restrictionists  that  the  great  mistake  of  the  last  thirty  year.' 
has  been  the  admission  of  so  many  persons  from  Southerr 
and  Eastern  Europe.* 

The  restrictionists  have  stated,  however,  that  such  re- 
ports unfavorable  to  the  "new''  immigration  do  not  neces- 
sarily mark  any  nation  or  race  as  inferior  to  any  other. 
They  merely  assert  that  this  report  and  those  related  to  it 
simply  seem  to  establish  the  point  that  certain  races  are  not 
as  assimilable  in  America  as  others  and  that  the  "new"  im- 
migration is  largely  made  up  of  such  races. 

One  authority  states  it  thus:^^  "It  is  unfortunate  that 
attempts  to  select  settlers  should  be  regarded  as  a  declara- 
tion of  superiority  by  the  nation  attempting  it.  For  prac- 
tical reasons  the  great  immigrant-receiving  countries  have 
found  it  necessary  to  decide  what  their  dominant  racial 
strain  shall  be.  This  does  not  mean  an  arrogant  trampling 
underfoot  of  other  strains,  and  should  not  be  so  regarded." 

The  report  of  the  committee  on  selective  immigration  of 
the  Eugenics  Committee  of  the  United  States,^^  was  to  the 
effect  that  "It  is  not  here  a  question  of  racial  superiority  of 
northwestern  Europeans  or  of  racial  inferiority  of  south- 
eastern Europeans.  It  is  simply  a  question  as  to  which  of 
'these  two  groups  of  aliens  as  a  whole  is  better  fitted  by 
tradition,  political  background,  customs,  social  organiza- 
tion, education  and  habits  of  thought  to  adjust  itself  to 
American  institutions  and  to  American  economic  and  social 
conditions."  | 

Dr.  Laughlin's  report  has  been  subjected  to  vigorous 
criticisms.    According  to  Professor  Gillam  an  examination* 
of  Dr.  Laughlin's  data  and  methods  of  analysis  proves  his' 
conclusion  that  "the  recent  immigrants  present  a  highers 
percentage  of  inborn  socially  inadequate  qualities  than  do"" 

♦See  also  Hirsch,  N.  D.  M.,  A  Study  of  Nntio-Racial  Mental  Differences,. 
for  an  excellent  investigation  of  this  problem.  | 

MacLean,  Modern  Immigration,  p.  226.  ' 

Hearings  of  the  House  Committee  on  Immigration,  Dec.  26,  1923-Jan. 
19,  1924,  p.  837.  ' 


BACK  TO  1890 


249 


ihe  older  stocks"  to  be  unfounded. He  questions  whether 
fhe  enumeration  of  defectives  in  institutions  reveals  the 
fes  )roportional  occurrence  of  these  inadequacies  among  the 
mrious  race  and  nativity  groups;  whether  the  data  really 
iisclose  significant  differences  in  occurrence  among  the 
rarious  races  and  nationalities;  and  finally,  whether  the  in- 
idequacies  are  really  innate. 
Professor  Gillam  stated: 

"(1)  His  data  are  incomplete  and  statistically  biased,  as 
)roved  by  the  relatively  large  probable  errors  of  the  sam- 
)les  chosen. 

''(2)  The  quotas  for  the  various  races  and  nationalities 
Eire  derived  without  proper  regard  for  the  homogeneity  of 
the  facts  compared. 

i  "(3)  The  statistics  disclose  larger  differential  ratios  be- 
tween the  older  immigrant  stocks  and  the  natives  than  be- 
tween the  recent  and  older  immigrant  stocks. 

^'(4)  Quotas  for  recent  immigrant  stocks  are  actually 
ower  than  the  quotas  for  the  older  stocks,  native  and  im- 
migrant, in  seven  out  of  the  nine  inadequacies  studied. 

^'(5)  Finally,  tests  by  the  methods  of  correlation  not  only 
further  prove  the  unreliability  of  Dr.  Laughlin's  data,  they 
also  remove  any  possible  support  for  his  assumption  that 
social  inadequacies  are  racially  inborn  values." 

H.  S.  Jennings  has  stated  that  even  if  Dr.  Laughlin's 
[data  be  accepted  it  is  apparent  that  the  alien  stocks  do  not 
Icompare  unfavorably  with  the  native  stocks  in  every  trait. 
|Furthermore,  he  points  out  that  Ireland  takes  first  place  as 
a  contributor  to  both  insanity  and  dependency  and  to  all 
defects  taken  together,  while  Austria-Hungary  contributes 
fewer  defectives  than  any  of  the  European  countries  either 
North  or  South. 

C.  Kirkpatrick  is  of  the  opinion  that  ^'it  is  certainly 
true  that  since  only  a  small  proportion  of  the  defectives  in 

"Gillam,  J.  M.,  "Statistics  and  the  Immigration  Problem,"  American 
Journal  of  Sociology,  Vol.  30  (1924-25),  pp.  29-48. 

"Jennings,  H.  S.,  "Undesirable  Aliens,"  Survey,  Dec.  15,  1923. 
j    ^  Kirkpatrick,  C,  "Selective  Immigration,"  Journal  of  Social  Forces, 
March,  1925. 


250  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


the  United  States  are  in  institutions,  it  is  questionable 
reason  from  the  proportions  which  have  received  instit 
tional  care  to  the  characteristics  of  entire  immigrant  group^j 
.  .  .  The  best  of  the  Southern  Europeans  are  far  bette; 
than  the  poorest  of  the  Northern  Europeans  and  while  th 
present  law  may  have  a  certain  biological  validity,  bein 
based  on  group  selection,  it  is  a  most  clumsy  instrument 
with  which  to  obtain  a  desired  end.   The  sheep  may  not  b 
separated  efficiently  from  the  goats  on  the  basis  of  geogi 
raphy." 

Dr.  Antonio  Stella  has  criticized  Dr.  Laughlin's  report  iis! 
some  detail.^"   He  argues  that  ^'only  the  negative  feature^ 
of  immigration  are  presented.    Not  the  slightest  mentioii 
is  made  of  the  great  incalculable  contribution  which  th 
newer  immigration  has  made  towards  the  growth,  developi 
ment  and  cultural  life  of  this  country.^'    He  then  argues 
that  the  figures  in  Dr.  Laughlin's  report  do  not  correspon(| 
with  our  every-day  experience,  for  the  reason  that  som'* 
V  states  do  not  provide  institutional  care  for  defectives  to  th 
extent  that  other  states  do  so.    The  effect  of  this  is  "t 
make  everything  look  worse  than  it  really  is  for  the  new 
immigrants,"  since  these  are  for  the  most  part  found  i 
states  which  have  numerous  institutions  for  defectives. 
Other  causes  of  error  are  pointed  out  to  be  as  follows: 
The  failure  to  take  into  account  the  difference  o' 
the  various  prevailing  age  groups  in  the  foreign  and  nativ 
population  in  computing  the  incidence  of  crime,  feeble 
mindedness  and  insanity,  conditions  in  which  age  is  a  grea 
factor. 

"(2)  The  too  small  and  arbitrarily  selected  number  of  in-| 
stitutions  from  which  the  returns  were  obtained.  ... 

...  (4)  The  total  lack  of  information  regarding  the| 
number  of  years  these  'socially  inadequate'  immigrantsj 
have  resided  in  America.  ...  | 

^'(5)  More  importance  should  have  been  given  to  the  eni 
vironmental  causes  of  'social  inadequacies'  as  blindness,! 

"Stolla,  A.,  Some  Aspects  of  Italian  Immigration  to  the  United  States^' 
pp.  105-122. 


BACK  TO  1890 


251 


roil] 
k 
le 
bei 
iim 


nsanity,  tuberculosis,  etc.  In  many  cases  tuberculosis 
imong  immigrants  is  an  occupational  disease. 

"(6)  The  generalization  of  the  term  'social  inadequacy' 
s  grossly  misleading  when  the  statistics  are  used  to  show 
he  inferiority  of  one  race  to  another,  as  to  its  qualifications 
'or  admission  to  America.  .  .  . 

.  .  (8)  The  report,  while  showing  a  serious  condition 
imong  the  foreign  born,  does  not  prove  that  the  'recent  im- 
nigrants  from  Southeastern  Europe  as  a  whole  present  a 
ligher  percentage  of  inborn  socially  inadequate  qualities 
han  do  the  older  stocks'.  If  anything,  these  statistics 
would  seem  to  show  that  some  of  the  worst  types  of  social 
nadequacy  are  found  to  be  most  prevalent  among  the  im- 
migrants from  the  North." 
Unquestionably  there  is  justification  for  such  criticisms  of 
r.  Laughlin's  report  as  those  indicated  above.  Yet  these 
criticisms  hardly  justify  the  conclusion  of  Dr.  Stella  that 
'the  errors  in  the  report  are  so  serious  as  to  render  it  value- 
ess  as  a  source  of  information."  For,  whether  the  inade- 
quacies studied  are  innate  to  a  group  or  race  as  a  whole,  or 
not — the  facts  seem  to  indicate  the  contrary — nevertheless, 
the  concentration  of  the  newer  immigrants  in  certain  sec- 
tions of  this  country  under  different  environmental  condi- 
tions, socially,  industrially  and  economically,  has  created 
problems  which  must  be  solved.  Drastic  restriction  would 
seem  to  be  the  first  step  in  such  a  solution.  Dr.  Laughlin's 
report  has  been  of  great  value  in  concentrating  attention  on 
the  existing  conditions  in  those  states  in  which  the  immi- 
grants tend  to  settle.  If  it  did  no  more  than  this,  it  has 
not  proved  worthless.  But,  whatever  its  merit,  without 
doubt  it  had  great  weight  with  Congress  in  the  enactment 
of  the  existing  legislation. 

Formulating  their  conclusions  largely  from  these  tests, 
reports  and  opinions  of  authorities  on  immigration,  it 
seemed  to  the  advocates  of  restriction  that  the  solution  to 
the  problem  was  a  more  drastic  restriction  of  the  new  im- 
migration. Indeed,  many  felt  that  if  this  could  be  ob- 
tained, the  problem  would  be  largely  solved,  or  could  be 


D 

r 


252  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


solved  in  time.  For,  as  President  Lowell  of  Harvard  says:^- 
*'It  is,  indeed,  largely  a  perception  of  the  need  of  homo- 
xgeneity,  as  a  basis  for  popular  government  and  the  pubh( 
opinion  on  which  it  rests,  that  justifies  democracies  in  re- 
sisting the  influx  in  great  numbers  of  a  widely  differenli 
race."   Professor  Garner  has  pointed  out  that  it  is  the  dut>  j 
of  the  State  to  secure  ethnic  or  racial  homogeneity  in  its  ■ 
population.   He  stated,  ''Ethnic  homogeneity  coupled  with  i 
geographic  unity  are  undoubtedly  among  the  most  powerful  i 
factors  in  maintaining  political  solidarity,  and  it  should  be  | 
the  ambition  of  every  State  to  organize  itself  so  as  to  secure ' 
these  elements  of  national  strength  and  stability.  .  .  .  The  ] 
State  should  strive  by  all  proper  means  to  render  its  popula-  = 
tion  ethnically  homogeneous  and  thereby  remove  one  of  the  | 
most  potent  sources  of  national  discord.  .  .  .  Self-preserva- 
tion is  the  first  law  of  nature/' 

Yet,  ''of  all  the  nations  in  the  world  which  have  firsi 
hand  knowledge  of  large  emigrant  or  immigrant  move- 
ments, the  United  States  is  the  one  nation  which  has  nol 
regulated  this  movement  of  peoples  to  its  own  needs 
Italy's  admirable  emigration  laws  are  carefully  framed  tc 
suit  her  own  needs.  Hungary's  emigration  system  wai 
planned  to  build  up  the  port  of  Fiume,  bring  wealth  bad 
to  Hungary  and  keep  Hungarians  in  America  from  bein^ 
naturalized.  Bulgaria,  on  the  other  hand,  wishing  to  keef 
her  citizens  at  home,  forbade  steamship  agents  in  the  coun- 
try. Rumania  puts  a  secret  mark  on  the  passports  of  Jews 
which  prevents  them  once  they  have  left  Rumania,  fron 
getting  vises  which  will  permit  them  to  return  to  Rumania  j 
again.  Poland  facilitates  the  emigration  of  Jews,  and  hin- 
ders the  emigration  of  the  infinitely  more  desirable  Polisl 
peasant.  All  foreign  countries  develop  laws  which  accru( 
to  their  own  benefit  and  meet  the  peculiar  needs  of  th( 
different  countries.  For  the  United  States  to  delay  doin^ 
so  is  suicidal." 

"  Lowell,  Public  Opinion  and  Popular  Government,  p.  35. 
"  Gamer,  Introduction  to  Political  Science,  pp.  51-52. 
^'^  Roberts,  Why  Europe  Leaves  Home,  p.  120. 


BACK  TO  1890 


253 


In  a  brief  magazine  article,  the  author  suggested  as  early 
is  1922  that  a  simple,  effective  solution  to  the  problem 
l^ould  be  to  adopt  the  census  of  1890  instead  of  1910  or 
1920  as  the  basis  for  permanent  legislation  and  future  per- 
ientage  laws.^®   It  is  true  that  the  three  per  cent  law  based 
n  the  census  of  1910  was  primarily  quantitative,  but  it  was 
levertheless  qualitative  to  the  extent  that  it  kept  from  our 
pores  several  millions  of  "undesirables"  which  this  coun- 
ty could  afford  to  do  without.    The  one  thing  the  three 
ier  cent  law  did  was  to  prove  that  numerical  limitation  by 
i  quota  system  is  the  most  effective  check  we  have  been 
ible  to  put  on  the  tide  of  immigration.    However,  in  the 
mergency,  the  census  of  1910  was  adopted  merely  because 
he  facts  desired  were  easily  obtained  on  that  basis.   It  was 
lever  intended  to  be  the  basis  of  a  permanent  percentage 
aw.   In  Chapter  VI  we  noted  that  the  three  per  cent  law 
lid  check  the  ''new'^  immigration  to  some  extent,  yet  such 
estriction  was  not  based  on  historical  facts.   The  two  per 
^ent  law  based  on  the  census  of  1890  limits  qualitatively 
0  a  much  higher  degree  as  well  as  numerically  within  safe 
)Oundaries.    It  automatically  closes  the  door  to  all  but  a 
few  thousand  "new"  immigrants  each  year,  yet  it  does  not 
•xclude  to  a  detrimental  point  those  immigrants  from 
Xorthern  and  Western  Europe  who  may  desire  to  come  and 
who  are  easily  assimilated.    It  is  a  practical,  American 
solution.    It  will  give  us  time  to  educate  and  assimilate 
those  aliens  now  here,  a  task  of  gigantic  proportions,  re- 
quiring many  years.    Such  a  provision  would  seem  to  be 
■eminently  fair  and  equitable,  as  we  shall  indicate  in  the 
conclusion  of  this  chapter.   Yet  it  raised  a  storm  of  protest 
among  the  nationals  whose  quotas  it  reduced.   But  this  is 
the  invariable  effect  of  any  legislative  proposals  that  are 
frankly  framed  for  the  benefit  of  America  and  Americans 
rather  than  for  Europe  and  Europeans.    And  yet,  as  in 
the  case  of  any  bill,  the  character  of  the  opposition  may  be 
the  strongest  kind  of  evidence  of  intrinsic  merit. 

"  Garis,  R.  L.,  "The  Immigration  Problem — A  Simple  American  Solu- 
tion," Scrib7ier's  Magazine,  Sept.,  1922. 


254  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


The  new  immigration  Act  provided  that  the  Secretary  ( 
State,  the  Secretary  of  Commerce,  and  the  Secretary  ( 
Labor  shall  prepare  a  statement  for  the  President  of  th 
United  States  showing  the  quota  of  each  nationality  er 
titled  to  immigration  visas  under  the  law. 

Each  of  the  Secretaries  named  appointed  two  represents 
tives  on  an  immigration  quota  committee  to  prepare  th 
basic  statistical  material  upon  which  such  a  report  coul 
be  based.  The  work  of  this  committee  was  begun  May  31  < 
1924,  and  the  report  to  the  respective  secretaries  was  date 
June  19,  1924.  The  report  of  the  immigration  quota  com 
mittee  to  the  three  secretaries  was  in  part  as  follows: 

The  committee  which  you  designated  as  your  representatives  to  detei 
mine  the  population  bases  upon  which  to  compute  the  quotas  of  immj 
grants  from  different  nationalities,  as  provided  for  in  the  immigratio 
act  of  1924,  have  completed  their  task  and  have  the  honor  to  subm] 
herewith  a  statement  of  the  population  bases  representing  the  number  o 
foreign-born  individuals  of  each  nationality  resident  in  continental  Unitef 
States,  as  determined  by  the  census  of  1890. 

In  case  of  a  country  recognized  by  the  United  States  but  for  which  ■ 
separate  enumeration  was  not  made  in  the  census  of  1890,  the  committe 
acting  as  your  representatives  have,  as  is  required  by  section  12  of  th 
immigration  act,  estimated  the  number  of  individuals  born  in  such  countr 
and  resident  in  continental  United  States  in  1890.   Similarly  in  the  case  c' 
a  colony  or  dependency  existing  before  1890  but  for  which  a  separat 
enumeration  was  not  made  in  the  census  of  1890  and  which  was  nc ' 
included  in  the  enumeration  for  the  country  to  which  such  colony  ci 
dependency  belonged,  and  in  the  case  of  territory  administered  under  . 
protectorate,  the  committee  have  estimated  the  number  of  individual! 
born  in  such  colony,  dependency,  or  territory  and  resident  in  continent^' 
United  States  in  1890,  and  have  included  the  number  in  the  populatio:' 
basis  for  the  country  to  which  such  colony  or  dependency  belongs  ci 
which  administers  such  protectorate. 

Also  in  the  case  of  changes  in  political  boundaries  in  foreign  countrie; 
occurring  subsequently  to  1890  and  resulting  in  the  creation  of  new  couDt| 
tries,  the  Governments  of  which  are  recognized  by  the  United  States,  0  | 
in  the  establishment  of  self-governing  dominions,  or  in  the  transfer  c 
territory  from  one  country  to  another,  such  transfer  being  recognized  b; 
the  United  States,  or  in  the  surrender  by  one  country  of  territory,  th 
transfer  of  which  has  not  been  recognized  by  the  United  States,  or  in  th 
administration  of  territories  under  mandates,  your  committee,  as  the  la^ 
requires,  have  estimated  the  number  of  individuals  resident  in  continents 
United  States  in  1890  who  were  born  within  the  area  included  in  such  ne\ 
countries  or  self-governing  dominions  or  in  such  territory  as  transferred  oj 
surrendered  or  administered  under  a  mandate  and  have  revised,  so  far  a 
necessary,  the  population  basis  for  each  country  involved  in  any  sucf 
change  of  political  boundary.  I 


BACK  TO  1890 


255 


The  classes  of  political  divisions  for  which  the  committee  have  submitted 
opulation  bases,  are  as  follows: 

(1)  Independent  countries  in  existence  in  1890. 

(2)  Colonies,  dependencies,  or  self-governing  dominions  for  which  sepa- 
te  enumeration  was  made  in  the  census  of  1890. 

(3)  Independent  countries  which  have  come  into  existence  since  1890. 

(4)  Self-governing  dominions  coming  into  existence  since  1890. 

(5)  Surrendered  territories  coming  into  existence  since  1890. 

(6)  Territories  administered  under  mandates. 

Since  the  law  provides  that  the  minimum  quota  shall  be  100,  your 
mmittee  have  thought  it  unnecessary  to  estimate  more  exactly  the 
umber  of  persons  born  in  a  particular  country  or  territory  and  resident  in 
mtinental  United  States  in  1890  in  those  cases  where  it  was  evident  that 
8  total  number  could  not  exceed  5,000  and  therefore  would  not  yield  a 
tiota  of  more  than  100  on  a  2  per  cent  basis. 

On  June  30  the  three  Secretaries  transmitted  to  the 
resident  their  report  based  upon  the  action  of  the  quota 
ommittee  and  the  President  the  same  day  issued  the  fol- 
Dwing  proclamation : 

By  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  America 
A  PROCLAMATION 

Whereas  it  is  provided  in  the  act  of  Congress  approved  May  26,  1924, 
ititled  "An  act  to  limit  the  immigration  of  aliens  into  the  United  States, 
nd  for  other  purposes"  that — 

"The  annual  quota  of  any  nationality  shall  be  two  per  centum  of 
the  number  of  foreign-born  individuals  of  such  nationality  resident  in 
continental  United  States  as  determined  by  the  United  States  census 
of  1890,  but  the  minimum  quota  of  any  nationality  shall  be  100  (Sec 
11(a)). 

"For  the  purposes  of  this  Act  nationality  shall  be  determined  by 
country  by  birth  *  *  *  (sec.  12  (a)). 

"The  Secretary  of  State,  the  Secretary  of  Commerce,  and  the  Secre- 
tary of  Labor,  jointly,  shall,  as  soon  as  feasible  after  the  enactment  of 
this  act,  prepare  a  statement  showing  the  number  of  individuals  of  the 
various  nationalities  resident  in  continental  United  States  as  deter- 
mined by  the  United  States  census  of  1890,  which  statement  shall  be 
the  population  basis  for  the  purposes  of  subdivision  (a)  of  section  11 
(sec.  12(b)). 

"Such  officials  shall,  jointly,  report  annually  to  the  President,  the 
quota  of  each  nationality  under  subdivision  (a)  of  section  11,  together 
with  the  statements,  estimates,  and  revisions  provided  for  in  this  sec- 
tion. The  President  shall  proclaim  and  make  known  the  quotas  so 
reported,    (sec.  12(e)). 

And  whereas  satisfactory  evidence  has  been  presented  to  me  that  the 
lecretary  of  State,  the  Secretary  of  Commerce,  and  the  Secretary  of  Labor, 
mrsuant  to  the  authority  conferred  upon  them  in  the  act  of  Congress 


256  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 

approved  May  26,  1924,  have  made  the  statement  and  the  quotas  therei, 

provided.  > 

Now,  therefore,  I,  Calvin  Coolidge,  President  of  the  United  States 
America,  acting  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  power  in  me  vested  by  t! 
aforesaid  act  of  Congress,  do  hereby  proclaim  and  make  known  that  ( 

and  after  July  1,  1924,  and  throughout  the  fiscal  year  1924-1925,  the  quo 
of  each  nationality  provided  in  said  Act  shall  be  as  follows : 

Quota 

Country  or  area  of  birth  1924-192 

♦Afghanistan    *100 

Albania    100 

Andorra    100 

Arabian  peninsula  (1,  2)   100 

Armenia   124 

Australia,  including  Papua,  Tasmania,  and  all  islands  appertain- 
ing to  Australia  (3,  4)   121 

Austria    785 

Belgium  (5)    512 

♦Bhutan    *100 

Bulgaria    100 

Cameroon  (proposed  British  mandate)   100 

Cameroon  (French  mandate)   100 

^♦China   *100 

Czechoslovakia    3,073 

Danzig,  Free  City  of   228 

Denmark  (5,  6)   2,789 

Egypt    100 

Esthonia    124 

Ethiopia  (Abyssinia)    100 

Finland    471 

France  (1,  5,  6)   3,954 

Germany    51,227 

Great  Britain  and  Northern  Ireland  (1,  3,  5,  6)   34,007 

Greece    100 

Hungary    473 

Iceland   100 

/♦India  (3)    ♦lOO 

Iraq  (Mesopotamia)    100 

Irish  Free  State  (3)   28,567 

Italy,  including  Rhodes,  Dodekanesia,  and  Castellorizzo  (5)   3,845 

/♦Japan    ♦lOO 

^  Lativa    142 

Liberia   100 

Liechtenstein    100 

Lithuania    344 

Luxemburg    100 

Monaco    100 

Morocco  (French  and  Spanish  Zones  and  Tangier)   100 

♦Muscat  (Oman)    ♦lOO 

Nauru  (proposed  British  mandate)  (4)   100 

/♦Nepal    ♦lOO 

Netherlands  (1,  5,  6)   1,648 

New  Zealand  (including  appertaining  islands)  (3,  4)   100 

Norway  (5)    6,453 

♦New  Guinea,  and  other  Pacific  Islands  under  proposed  Aus- 
tralian mandate  (4)    ♦lOO 


Stata 


BACK  TO  1890  257 


Quota 

Country  or  area  of  birth  (Continued)  1924-1925 

Palestine  (with  Trans-Jordan  proposed  British  mandate)    100 

Persia  (1)    100 

haPoland    5,982 

Portugal  (1,  5)    503 

Qii((BRuanda  and  Urundi  (Belgian  mandate)    100 

Rumania    603 

Russia,  European  and  Asiatic  (1)    2,248 

Samoa,  Western  (4)  (proposed  mandate  of  New  Zealand)    100 

San  Marino   100 

'Siam    *100 

South  Africa,  Union  of  (3)    100 

South  West  Africa  (proposed  mandate  of  Union  of  South  Africa)  100 

Spain  (5)    131 

Sweden    9,561 

Switzerland    2.081 

Syria  and  The  Lebanon  (French  mandate)    100 

Tanganyika  (proposed  British  mandate)    100 

Togoland  (proposed  British  mandate)    100 

Togoland  (French  mandate)    100 

Turkey   100 

Yap  and  other  Pacific  islands  (under  Japanese  mandate)  (4) . . .  *100 

Yugoslavia    671 


♦For  each  of  the  countries  indicated  by  an  asterisk  (*)  is  established  a 
lominal  quota  according  to  the  minimum  fixed  by  law.  These  nominal 
juotas,  as  in  the  case  of  all  quotas  hereby  established,  are  available  only 
'or  persons  born  within  the  respective  countries  who  are  eligible  to  citizen- 
jhip  in  the  United  States  and  admissible  under  the  immigration  laws  of  the 
United  States. 

(1)  (a)  Persons  born  in  the  portions  of  Persia,  Russia,  or  the  Arabian 
peninsula  situated  within  the  Barred  Zone,  and  who  are  admissible  under 
the  immigration  laws  of  the  United  States  as  quota  immigrants,  will  be 

|ii  charged  to  the  quotas  of  these  countries;  and  {b)  persons  bom  in  the  colo- 
t|i  nies,  dependencies,  or  protectorates,  or  portions  thereof,  within  the  Barred 
|,  Zone,  of  France,  Great  Britain,  the  Netherlands,  or  Portugal,  who  are 
:f  ^idmissible  under  the  immigration  laws  of  the  United  States  as  quota  immi- 
;  grants,  will  be  charged  to  the  quota  of  the  country  to  which  such  colony 
I    or  dependency  belongs  or  by  which  it  is  administered  as  a  protectorate. 

(2)  The  quota  area  denominated  "Arabian  peninsula"  consists  of  all 
'  territory  except  Muscat  and  Aden,  situated  in  the  portion  of  that  peninsula 

and  adjacent  islands,  to  the  southeast  of  Iraq,  of  Palestine  with  Trans- 
Jordan,  and  of  Egypt. 

(3)  Quota  immigrants  born  in  the  British  self-governing  dominions  or  in 
the  Empire  of  India,  will  be  charged  to  the  appropriate  quota  rather  than 
to  that  of  Great  Britain  and  Northern  Ireland.  There  are  no  quota  restric- 
tions for  Canada  and  Newfoundland. 

(4)  As  shown  on  Chart  No.  1262a,  Hydrographic  Office,  United  States 
Navy  Department. 

(5)  Quota  immigrants  eligible  to  citizenship  in  the  United  States,  bom 
in  a  colony,  dependency,  or  protectorate  of  any  country  to  which  a  quota 
applies  will  be  charged  to  the  quota  of  that  country. 

(6)  In  contrast  with  the  law  of  1921,  the  Immigration  Act  of  1924  pro- 
vides that  persons  bom  in  the  colonies  or  dependencies  of  European  coun- 
tries situated  in  Central  America,  South  America,  or  the  islands  adjacent 


258  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


to  the  American  continents  (except  Newfoundland  and  islands  pertainin 
to  Newfoundland,  Labrador  and  Canada),  will  be  charged  to  the  quota  o 
the  country  to  which  such  colony  or  dependency  belongs.  ! 

General  Note. — The  immigration  quotas  assigned  to  the  various  counjj 
tries  and  quota-areas  should  not  be  regarded  as  having  any  political  sig 
nificance  whatever,  or  as  involving  recognition  of  new  governments,  or  o 
new  boundaries,  or  of  transfers  of  territory  except  as  the  United  State 
Government  has  already  made  such  recognition  in  a  formal  and  oflScia 
manner. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  caused  the  seal  os 
the  United  States  to  be  affixed. 

Done  at  the  city  of  Washington,  this  thirtieth  day  of  June,  in  the  yean 
of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  twenty-four  and  oi 

[seal]  the  independence  of  the  United  States  of  America  the  one  hun- 
dred and  forty-eighth.  ■ 

(Signed)  Calvin  Coolidgb. 

By  the  President: 
Charles  E.  Hughes, 
Secretary  of  State. 

This  proclamation  shows  the  number  of  aliens  that  could 
be  admitted  to  the  United  States  under  the  new  quota  la^^ 
from  quota  territory.  But  it  must  not  be  assumed  that  thej 
law  or  this  proclamation  places  any  limit  on  total  immigra^ 
tion.  There  are  exemptions  in  the  quota  law,  and,  further.! 
nearly  all  the  American  hemisphere  is  not  subject  to  the 
quota  law.  What  the  total  immigration  will  be  cannot  be 
determined  until  the  end  of  each  year.  In  Chapter  VI  we 
noted  what  actually  happened  as  far  as  total  immigration 
is  concerned  for  the  fiscal  years  1921-1924.  I 

The  naturalization  laws  state  that  the  provisions  thereof 
"shall  apply  to  aliens  being  free  white  persons,  and  to  aliensj 
of  African  nationality  and  to  persons  of  African  descent."! 
Aliens  of  other  races  are  not  eligible  to  citizenship  and 
hence,  with  certain  exceptions,  are  barred  from  enteringj 
the  United  States  under  the  new  immigration  law  and  d(^ 
not  fall  within  the  quota.  The  nominal  quota  of  100  for 
certain  countries  can  apply  therefore  only  to  persons  ofi 
white  or  African  race  who  were  born  in  such  countries. 

In  the  table  following  a  comparison  is  made  of  the  quota 
for  1924-25  with  the  quota  for  1923-24.  | 


BACK  TO  1890 


259 


Comparison  of  Quota  for  1923-24  with  Quota  for  1924-25. 


(The  asterisk  and  numbers  in  parenthesis  are  explained  above  in  the 
President's  Proclamation) 


Quota 

Quota 

No. 

Country  or  area  oi  birth 

1  (\(yA  OK 

1. 

0 

100* 

2. 

288 

100 

3. 

C) 

100 

4. 

C) 

100 

5. 

Armenia   

230 

124 

6. 

Australia,  including  Papua,  Tasmania,  and  all 

279 

121 

!  7. 

7,342 

785 

'  8. 

Belgium  (5)   

1,563 

512 

'  9. 

0 

100* 

.10. 

302 

100 

11. 

(") 

100 

12. 

C) 

100 

13. 

♦China   

0 

100**^ 

14. 

14,357 

3,073 

15. 

301 

228 

16. 

Denmark  (5,  6)   

5,619 

2,789 

il7. 

Egypt   

18 

100 

18. 

1,348 

124 

19. 

100 

20. 

Finland   

3,921 

471 

21. 

France  (1,  5,  6)   

5,729 

3,954 

22. 

Germany   

67,607 

51,227 

23. 

Great  Britain  and  Northern  Ireland  (1,  3,  5,  6). . 

77,342 

34,007 

24. 

3,063 

100 

25. 

5,747 

473 

26. 

Iceland   

75 

100 

27. 

♦India  (3)   

0 

100"^ 

28. 

C) 

100 

29. 

Irish  Free  State  (3)   

(*) 

28,567 

?30. 

Italy,  including  Rhodes,  Dodekanesia,  and  Cas- 

'42,128 

3,845 

1  31. 

0 

100*  tr 

32. 

1,540 

142 

33. 

100 

34. 

(') 

100 

35. 

Lithuania   

2,629 

344 

36. 

92 

100 

'  37. 

(*) 

100 

38. 

Morocco  (French  and  Spanish  Zones  and  Tan- 

n 

100 

0 

100* 

40. 

(') 

100 

41. 

0 

100**- 

42. 

Netherlands  (1,  5,  6)   

3,607 

1,648 

i  43. 

New  Zealand   (including  appertaining  islands) 

(3,  4)   

80 

100 

44. 

Norway  (5)   

12,202 

6,453 

45. 

♦New  Guinea,  and  other  Pacific  Islands  under  pro- 

0 

100* 

260  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


Quota  Quo 

No.          Country  or  area  of  birth  (Continued)  1923-24  1924- 

46.  Palestine  (with  Trans-Jordan  proposed  British 

mandate)    57  1 

47.  Persia  (1)    C)  100 

48.  Poland   30,977  5,982 

49.  Portugal  (1,  5)    2,465  503 

50.  Ruanda  and  Urundi  (Belgium  mandate)    (")  100 

51.  Rumania   7,419  603 

iy62.    Russia,  European  and  Asiatic  (1)    24,405  2,248 

53.  Samoa,  Western  (4)  (proposed  mandate  of  New 

Zealand)    («)  100 

54.  San  Marino    (»)  100 

55.  *Siam    0  100= 

56.  South  Africa,  Union  of  (3)    (•=)  100 

57.  South  West  Africa  (proposed  mandate  of  Union 

of  South  Africa)    (*=)  100 

58.  Spain  (5)    912  131 

59.  Sweden    20,042  9,561 

60.  Switzerland    3,752  2,081 

61.  Syria  and  The  Lebanon  (French  mandate)    882  100 

62.  Tanganyika  (proposed  British  mandate)    (")  100 

63.  Togoland  (proposed  British  mandate)    O  100 

64.  Togoland  (French  mandate)    (')    .  100 

65.  Turkey   2,654  100 

)6.  *Yap  and  other  Pacific  islands  (under  Japanese 

mandate)  (4)    («)  100^ 

67.    Yugoslavia    6,426  671 

Other  Europe    86 

^^ther  Asia   92 

Africa  other  than  Egypt    104  . .  »■ 

Atlantic  islands  (other  than  Azores,  Canary  Is- 
lands, Madeira  Islands,  and  islands  adjacent  to 

American  continents)    121 


Total   357,803  164,667 

'  Included  in  ''Other  Europe." 
"Included  in  "Other  Asia." 
"  Included  in  Africa. 
For  Great  Britain  and  Ireland, 

*  Included  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland. 

'  Including  Fiume,  71,  but  not  the  islands  named,  which  are  included  ini 
"Other  Asia." 

*  Included  under  title  "New  Zealand  and  Pacific  Islands." 


y  Approximately  55,000  were  admitted  from  quota  coun-| 
tries,  as  exempt  from  the  quota,  after  the  quota  was  filled. 
This  number  was  made  up  largely  of  aliens  of  classes  which 
were  entirely  exempt  from  the  quota  as  provided  by  law; 
others,  such  as  returning  residents,  were  exempt  after  a 
quota  was  exhausted;  and  finally  considerable  numbers 


BACK  TO  1890 


261 


ere  admitted  in  conformity  with  court  decisions.  These 
Idecisions  were  reversed  by  the  United  States  Supreme 
■Court  on  May  26,  1924;  but  Congress,  by  joint  resolution, 
Isubsequently  legalized  the  status  of  these  aliens  as  resi- 
dents of  the  United  States,  as  we  noted  in  the  previous 
Ichapter. 

r  The  quota  law  does  not  apply  to  natives  of  Canada  and 
INewfoundland,  Mexico,  Central  America,  South  America, 
land  the  West  Indies;  hence,  practically  all  of  the  admis- 
Isions  from  these  countries  were  not  chargeable  to  any 
quota.   Aliens  to  the  number  of  80,682  who  had  previously 
been  in  the  United  States  returned  to  the  United  States 
after  an  absence  of  less  than  one  year;  hence  their  last 
permanent  place  of  residence  was  the  United  States. 

Practically  all  of  the  admissions  from  China,  Japan,  and 
India  in  the  year  1923-1924  were  not  chargeable  to  the 
I  quota  of  any  country. 

In  comparing  the  quotas  for  the  two  years,  as  given 
above,  an  important  fact  to  be  noted  is  that  many  addi- 
tional very  small  countries  or  territorial  units  are  listed  to 
have  a  minimum  quota  of  100,  and  certain  groupings  of  the 
earlier  year  disappear. 

It  must  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  immigration  quota  fig- 
ures apply  to  country  of  birth.  The  table  shows  that  the 
quota  as  a  whole  is  reduced  from  357,803  in  1923-1924  to 
164,667  for  the  fiscal  year,  1924-1925.  In  other  words,  the 
quota  immigration  is  reduced  by  law  more  than  one-half. 
However,  we  have  noted  already  that  this  does  not  mean 
that  total  immigration  will  be  reduced  one-half,  or  even 
reduced  at  all,  for  the  total  immigration  must  include  im- 
migrants from  countries  not  under  the  quota  and  also  the 
non-quota  immigrants  who  enter  the  United  States. 

Great  Britain  and  Ireland  and  the  Irish  Free  State  com- 
bined are  reduced  from  77,342  to  66,574,  a  cut  of  19  per 
cent.  Germany  is  reduced  from  67,607  to  51,227,  or  24  per 
cent.  Other  countries  of  northern  and  western  Europe 
get  a  considerable  reduction,  Norway's  being  from  12,202 
to  6,453,  while  Sweden's  is  from  20,042  to  9,561.  However, 


262  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


the  important  reductions  apply  to  the  countries  of  south- 
ern and  eastern  Europe.  Italy's  quota  is  reduced  froir 
42,128  to  3,845;  Poland's  cut  is  from  30,977  to  5,982;  Rus- 
sia's from  24,405  to  2,248;  Czechoslovakia's  from  14,357  to 
3,073;  Hungary's  from  5,747  to  473;  Austria's  from  7,342 
to  785;  and  Greece's  from  3,063  to  100. 


Dividing  Europe  and  a  part  of  Asia  into  two  large  groups 
of  countries,  north  and  west  Europe  as  a  whole  is  reduced 
from  a  quota  of  197,630  to  141,099  or  29  per  cent,  while  the 
quota  for  south  and  eastern  Europe  (with  Turkey  in  Asia, 
Siberia  and  Armenia)  is  reduced  from  158,540  to  20,447,  a 
cut  of  87  per  cent. 


BACK  TO  1890 


263 


It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  adoption  of  the  census  of 
!l890  automatically  reduced  the  ^'new"  immigration,  for  at 
that  time  the  movement  of  immigrants  from  southern  and 
eastern  Europe  was  just  beginning  to  get  under  way.  The 
charge  w^as  made  many  times,  both  in  the  House  and  in 
the  Senate,  that  this  change  to  the  census  of  1890  was  un- 
fair discrimination  against  the  peoples  from  southern  and 
'eastern  Europe  and  in  favor  of  the  peoples  from  northern 
and  western  Europe.  It  is  true,  as  the  figures  show,  that 
this  change  does  make  a  very  great  shift  in  the  proportion 
of  our  immigrants  who  are  permitted  to  come  from  these 
two  groups  of  countries.  The  opponents  of  the  law  assume 
that  this  constitutes  discrimination.  The  advocates  of  re- 
striction who  favored  the  1890  census  plan  argued  that  what 
they  really  demanded  was  the  perpetuation  of  a  very  gross 
discrimination  in  favor  of  the  countries  of  southern  and 
eastern  Europe,  a  discrimination  against  the  countries  of 
northern  and  western  Europe,  and,  in  effect,  a  discrimina- 
tion against  the  United  States. 

Many  of  the  restrictionists  stated  that  the  United  States 
ought  not  to  have  to  apologize  for  or  explain  any  actual 
discrimination  which  it  might  think  expedient  for  its  own 
welfare  and  prosperity.  They  pointed  out  that  virtually 
every  other  country  controls  emigration  or  immigration,  as 
the  case  may  be,  in  its  own  interests.  They  argued  that 
immigration  is  a  domestic  question  to  be  decided  in  the 
interests  of  the  American  people  and  not  in  the  interests 
of  any  other  people  or  nation  and  some  of  them  went  so 
far  as  to  state  that  we  may  be  as  arbitrary  as  we  please  in 
restricting  immigration. 

However,  according  to  their  argument  the  Act  of  1924, 
with  the  quotas  based  on  the  census  of  1890,  does  not  dis- 
criminate against  the  countries  of  southern  and  eastern 
Europe  despite  all  the  charges  of  those  opposed  to  it.  The 
present  law  creates  equalization  rather  than  discrimination. 
The  census  of  1890  as  the  quota  basis  gives  proper  repre- 
sentation without  discrimination. 

To  support  this  argument  they  set  forth  the  following 


264 

5840 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 

CONGRESSIONAL  EEOORD— HOUSE 


April  i 


REMOVING  THE  DISCRIMINATION" 

In  the  Present  Three  Per  Cent"  Immigration  Lav/^ 


Percentage  Racial  Slock  In  Present  (1920)  White  fcpulati'on  of 
the  United  States,  (Including  immigrants,  descendants  of  immfr 
grants  and  descendants  of  original  settlers) 

Total...92.386.237 
Percenta»ge  of  Quota  Immigration  Under  Present  Law 

Total  357,803 

fVrcentageof  Quota  Immi^ratwn  Under  "Johnson  Bill"  (H.R.7995) 

Total  161,184 

^  ^  ^  "Northern  AND  Western  "Countries 

P«rC«n1-of 
Raci*l  Stock 

Belgium  17 

^  ■  ;1  |S  B-  Denmark..,,.  ,...72 

^  i'/l  S  I  Finland  „  ^.-33 

t'M  ^  B  France  1.87 

Germany.   K.68 

British  Isles  6074 

Luxemburg   05 

'f  ^  B  Netherlan>3  -     ..  1.77 

B        §rl         Norway  1.72 

Sweden   2.45 

1^  ««...tBr..f^l  SW.TZER,.A.0   52 

|North«rn  f.l  Southern  i-M 

nd.Westernjl  tnd  Eastern  |^    Bg  Italy  Pefnd 

,.^3     m  m  ^     i  ^ 
lid     mt  '-m  |./;? 

_.-r^      ^:^C^      mm^li  - 

%8S02  56.33  84.11       K.62  44.64  14.88      60.74  21.61  3887       3S2  2.91       \6\  V.66  S» 

The  quotas  as  finally  worked  out  make  little  or  no  change  in  the  figures 
in  this  analysis,  which  was  worked  out  by  Congressman  Vaile. 

facts.  The  white  population  in  the  United  States,  accord- 
ing to  the  census  of  1920,  was  a  little  over  92,386,000  people. 
The  countries  of  northern  and  western  Europe  have  con- 
tributed 85.02  per  cent  of  this  white  population.  Under 
the  Act  of  1921  (the  3  per  cent  law),  they  received  only 


BACK  TO  1890 


265 


(56.33  per  cent,  while  under  the  present  law  they  are  entitled 
-  ito  approximately  84.11  per  cent  of  our  annual  quota  im- 
imigration.    On  the  other  hand  the  countries  of  southern 

Cd  eastern  Europe  have  furnished  only  14.62  per  cent  of 
r  present  white  population.  Under  the  Act  of  1921  these 
[countries  were  entitled  to  44.64  per  cent  of  our  quota  immi- 
Igration,  while  under  the  present  law  their  share  is  approxi- 
mately 14.88  per  cent,  which  is  about  a  quarter  of  one  per 
cent  more  than  they  deserve.  Since  the  quotas  for  southern 
land  eastern  Europe  are  thus  more  than  their  per  cent  of 
the  population  of  the  United  States,  where  is  there  dis- 
crimination? There  being  no  discrimination,  then  have 
'  they  any  right  to  complain — unless  they  insist  that  it  is 
the  alien  who  is  entitled  to  have  the  per  cent?  The  census 
of  1910,  which  was  the  basis  of  the  quotas  in  the  Act  of 
1921,  was  not  based  on  historical  facts  because  it  created 
a  discrimination  against  the  "old''  immigrants  who  founded 
and  developed  this  country. 

On  March  1,  1924  an  editorial  in  the  New  York  Times — 
pubhshed  and  controlled  by  Hon.  Adolph  Ochs,  one  of  the 
greatest  men  of  the  Jewish  race^ — stated: 

'The  census  of  1910,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  favors  the  newer 
!  immigration  at  the  expense  of  the  old,  and  permits  fewer 
I  representatives  of  those  races  which  built  up  the  United 
States  during  the  last  century  to  come  in  than  of  the  recent 
i  arrivals. 

''In  formulating  a  permanent  policy  two  considerations 
are  of  prime  importance.  The  first  is  that  the  country  has 
the  right  to  say  who  shall  and  who  shall  not  come  in.  It  is 
not  for  any  foreign  country  to  determine  our  immigration 
policy.  The  second  is  that  the  basis  of  restriction  must  be 
chosen  with  a  view  not  to  the  interests  of  any  group  or 
groups  in  this  country,  whether  racial  or  religious,  but 
rather  with  a  view  to  the  country's  best  interests  as  a  whole. 
The  great  test  is  assimilability.  Will  the  newcomers  fit 
into  the  American  life  readily?  Is  their  culture  sufficiently 
f  akin  to  our  own  to  make  it  possible  for  them  easily  to  take 
i  their  place  among  us?    There  is  no  question  of  'superior' 


A  COMPARISON  OF  CONTRIBU 
TIONS  TO  THE  POPULATION 
OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 
BY  PRINCIPAL  GEO- 
GRAPHIC DIVISIONS 


TABLE  1 

Northwest  European  Stock  in- 
cludes besides  the  countries  of 
Northwest  Europe,  Canada,  New- 
foundland, Iceland,  Australia  and 
New  Zealand. 

South  &  East  European  Stock  in- 
cludes besides  the  countries  of 
South  and  East  Europe,  Hither 
Asia  and  Africa. 

All  Others  include  West  Indies, 
Mexico,  Central  and  South  Amer- 
ica, together  with  the  Colored 
Races. 


266 


APPORTIONMENT  OF  QUOTAS 
2%  ON  CENSUS  OF  1890 


TABLE  2 
APPORTIONMENT  OF  QUOTAS 
BY  NATIONAL  ORIGIN 


TABLE  3 


These  three  tables  are  taken  from  pamphlet  No.  202,  International 
Conciliation,  September,  1924  by  John  B.  Trevor,  "An  Analysis  of  the 
American  Immigration  Act  of  1924,"  published  by  the  Carnegie  Endow- 
ment for  International  Peace. 

267 


268  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


or  'inferior'  races,  or  of  'Nordics',  or  of  prejudice,  or  of  racii 
egotism.    Certain  groups  not  only  do  not  fuse  easily,  bu 
consistently  endeavor  to  keep  alive  their  racial  distinction 
when  they  settle  among  us.   They  perpetuate  the  'hyphen  i 
which  is  but  another  way  of  saying  that  they  seek  to  creat  ' 
foreign  blocs  in  our  midst. 

"A  policy  must  be  formed  without  discriminating  un 
fairly  against  any  given  groups,  but  at  the  same  time  witl 
regard  to  the  interests  only  of  the  whole  and  not  of  an] 
special  part."  j 

The  census  of  1890  tends  to  give  to  the  people  of  thii 
country  proper  and  equal  representation  in  proportion  t( 
the  nationalities  of  which  this  country  is  made  up,  re 
gardless  of  whether  the  immigration  is  new  or  old.  Th(j 
restrictionists  who  argued  that  immigration  is  a  matter  oij 
privilege  and  not  a  matter  of  right,  contended  that  it  is  th^ 
American  people  who  are  entitled  to  a  quota.  Assuming 
this  to  be  our  object,  they  declared  that  the  quotas  basec 
on  the  census  of  1890  come  nearer  being  just  and  equitable 
to  all  the  people  of  America  than  any  other  census  or  plar 
which  it  was  practical  to  adopt.  If  their  argument  is  sounc 
then  it  is  evident  that  the  Act  of  1921  discriminated  ir 
favor  of  the  new  immigration,  while  the  Act  of  1924,  basec 
on  the  census  of  1890,  divides  our  present  and  future  imi 
migration  perhaps  as  nearly  as  it  can  be  divided  in  a  prac-j 
tical  way  in  proportion  to  the  national  origins  of  our  pres- 
ent population,  when  classified  as  "old"  and  "new"  immi-j 
grants.  ' 

Concerning  the  suggestion  to  base  the  quotas  on  the! 
census  of  1890  an  editorial  in  the  Saturday  Evening  Post  ^'^ 
for  November  18,  1922  declared: 

"As  a  temporary  measure,  the  Act  of  1921  has  been  of 
inestimable  value  in  meeting  a  grave  emergency;  but  even 
its  friends  are  free  to  admit  that  it  is  unscientific  legisla- 
tion, in  that  it  establishes  the  numbers  that  may  be  ad-', 

"  Without  doubt,  the  idoa  of  basing  the  quotas  on  the  census  of  1890' 
was  popularizofi  by  this  editorial  and  made  its  adoption  by  Congress  alraosti 
certain. 


BACK  TO  1890 


269 


lifted  without  setting  up  acceptable  standards  of  quality 
or  the  persons  so  favored.    Indeed,  it  was  realized  before 
lie  passage  of  the  act  that  its  logical  operation  would  make 
{  t  inevitable  that  a  considerable  proportion  of  its  bene- 
iciaries  would  be  persons  that  America  does  not  need  and 
loes  not  want,  aliens  that  would  almost  certainly  prove 
.lational  liabilities  rather  than  national  assets. 
'  ^'Mr.  Garis  ingeniously  proposes  to  remedy  the  weak- 
lesses  of  the  present  law  by  the  passage  of  a  new  act  in 
fvhich  the  percentage  rule  shall  be  applied  to  the  body  of 
Aliens  in  the  country  at  the  time  of  the  census  of  1890. 
The  merits  of  this  proposal  are  obvious.   In  the  year  1890 
t)ur  population  was  still  comparatively  homogeneous;  the 
immigrants  living  here  at  that  time  were  for  the  most  part 
bf  sound,  assimilable  stock.   Taken  by  and  large,  they  were 
the  stuff  of  which  Americans  have  been  successfully  made 
for  the  past  100  years.   Given  the  same  material,  we  can  go 
bn  for  another  century  making  the  sort  of  citizens  we  used 
to  make  30  years  ago.   Measured  in  terms  of  racial  values, 
■any  given  percentage  of  our  alien  element  in  1890  bears 
■about  the  same  relationship  to  a  like  percentage  of  our 
■foreign  population  of  1910  as  a  bushel  of  dollar  bills  bears 
■to  the  same  bulk  of  ruble  notes.   Automatically  such  a  law 
fas  Mr.  Garis  suggests  sets  a  high  standard  rather  than  a  low 
'  one,  and  at  the  same  time  fixes  those  definite  numerical 
limitations  that  instincts  of  national  self-preservation  dictate. 

'The  comparative  remoteness  of  the  year  1890  cannot  be 
made  a  basis  of  any  valid  argument  against  adopting  the 
•  racial  values  of  that  period.  A  practical  advantage  of  going 
.  back  to  1890  for  our  definitions  and  specifications  for  a 
really  useful  and  beneficent  inflow  of  foreigners  is  that  such 
la  measure  may  fairly  claim  the  support  of  those  who 
f  formed  their  opinion  on  immigration  matters  some  30  or  40 
years  ago  and  have  never  seen  the  necessity  of  altering  it 
to  conform  to  utterly  changed  conditions.   Then,  too,  such 
I  a  law,  in  addition  to  being  eminently  fair  and  equitable, 
would  be  a  fine  and  well-deserved  tribute  to  those  immi- 
;  grants  of  a  past  generation  to  whom  the  country  owes  so 


270  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


much.    It  would  be  a  fitting  recognition  of  the  sterl 
quahties  of  the  Scandinavian  peoples,  who  have  done 
much  to  build  up  the  Northwest;  of  the  Germans  of  t 
Carl  Schurz  type,  who  came  to  us  in  such  numbers  befo 
the  Civil  War;  of  the  Scotch  and  Scotch-Irish  who,  p 
haps  more  than  any  other  races,  take  to  Americanism  as 
duck  takes  to  water  and  are  perfectly  assimilated  in 
single  decade;  and  of  still  other  peoples  who  have  mate, 
ally  contributed  to  our  national  health  and  vigor." 

It  has  been  my  purpose  thus  far  in  this  chapter  to  expla: 
why  the  census  of  1890  was  adopted  as  the  basis  for  quota 
to  set  forth  the  argument  that  it  is  just  and  equitable  ai 
does  not  discriminate,  and  especially  to  establish  the  coi 
tention  that  it  gives  us  a  law  that  is  practical  and  effectivi 
As  Professor  Robert  DeC.  Ward  of  Harvard  has  put  i% 
^'Such  a  law  results  in  bringing  in  immigrants  who  presei 
no  difficulties  of  assimilation,  who  do  not  give  rise  to  oi 
immigration  'problem'.  It  is  automatically  selective,  i 
well  as  numerically  restrictive.  If  we  are  to  maintainni] 
physical  and  mental  standards  of  our  race;  if  we  are  i 
make  America  safe  for  democracy,  to  keep  America  f( 
Americans,  there  is  no  more  logical  or  practical  metho 
than  this."  Concerning  the  same  problem  Secretary  c 
Labor  Davis  stated  in  a  recent  address,  'There  should  b 
some  immigration  of  the  right  kind,  but  we,  not  Europcj 
will  say  who  shall  come  or  we  will  not  let  any  come."  Th 
census  of  1890  as  a  basis  for  quota  restriction  gives  us  th 
most  practical  and  effective  legislation  that  we  have  eve 
had  on  the  subject  of  immigration. 

The  Act  of  1924  provides  in  section  11 :  "(b)  The  annua 
quota  of  any  nationality  for  the  fiscal  year  beginning  July  1 
1927,  and  for  each  fiscal  year  thereafter,  shall  be  a  numbe 
which  bears  the  same  ratio  to  150,00*0  as  the  number  o 
inhabitants  in  continental  United  States  in  1920  havin< 
that  national  origin  (ascertained  as  hereinafter  provided  ii 
this  section)  bears  to  the  number  of  inhabitants  in  conti 
nental  United  States  in  1920,  but  the  minimum  quota  o 
any  nationality  shall  be  100.  j 


BACK  TO  1890 


271 


'  "(c)  For  the  purpose  of  subdivision  (b)  national  origin 
hall  be  ascertained  by  determining  as  nearly  as  may  be, 
h  respect  of  each  geographical  area  which  under  section  12 
|s  to  be  treated  as  a  separate  country  (except  the  geo- 
;raphical  areas  specified  in  subdivision  (c)  of  section  4) 
he  number  of  inhabitants  in  continental  United  States  in 
920  whose  origin  by  birth  or  ancestry  is  attributable  to 
iuch  geographical  area.    Such  determination  sha.ll  not  be 
lade  by  tracing  the  ancestors  or  descendants  of  particular 
ndividuals,  but  shall  be  based  upon  statistics  of  immigra- 
Son  and  emigration,  together  with  rates  of  increase  of  popu- 
lation as  shown  by  successive  decennial  United  States  cen- 
^ses,  and  such  other  data  as  may  be  found  to  be  reliable, 
i  "(d)  For  the  purpose  of  subdivisions  (b)  and  (c)  the  term 

I inhabitants  in  continental  United  States  in  1920'  does  not 
nclude  immigrants  from  the  geographical  areas  specified 
n  subdivision  (c)  of  section  4  or  their  descendants,  (2) 
iliens  ineligible  to  citizenship  or  their  descendants,  (3)  the 
lescendants  of  slave  immigrants,  or  (4)  the  descendants  of 
\merican  aborigines." 

'  Such  is  the  so-called  "national-origin"  plan,  sponsored  by 
senator  Reed  of  Pennsylvania.   It  is  to  be  noted  that  it  is 
I  ''national"  and  not  a  "racial"  origin  scheme.    To  illus- 
irate  this  point,  under  the  Act  of  1921  the  quota  of  Turkey 
.  ivas  about  2,500  of  which  only  158  were  Turks,  the  others 
I  being  417  Hebrews,  658  Armenians,  631  Syrians  and  179 
I  Greeks,  besides  other  races.    Under  a  racial  origin  plan 
'  there  would  have  to  be  a  separate  Jewish  quota.  The 
•  immigration  from  the  British  Isles  would  have  to  be  divided 
j  into  quotas  for  the  Irish,  the  Scotch  and  the  Welsh  as  well 
j  as  the  English.    What  would  happen  in  Central  Europe 
under  a  racial  origin  plan  would  be  worse  than  a  Chinese 
puzzle.    Furthermore,  under  such  a  plan  the  immigrants 
I  of  a  particular  racial  quota  in  many  cases  would  not  come 
Sfrom  any  one  country  but  from  many  countries,  which 
I  would  result  in  complicated  problems.    For  these  reasons 
'the  law  provides  for  national  and  not  racial  origin  as  the 
.quota  basis. 


272  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


But  does  this  give  us  as  practical  a  basis  for  numeric 
limitation  as  the  census  of  1890,  which  is  the  present  basis 
The  purpose  of  this  national  origin  plan  is  to  divide  oi 
immigrants  in  accordance  with  the  national  origins  of  oi 
whole  population  so  as  to  eliminate  all  charges  of  discrin 
ination.  The  facts,  however,  seem  to  indicate  that  th 
present  quotas  based  on  the  census  of  1890  eliminate  th 
discriminations  in  favor  of  either  the  "new"  or  the  "old 
immigration  so  far  as  each  type  has  contributed  to  our  racii 
make  up.  The  figures  as  stated  were  thus :  the  "old"  iir 
migration  is  entitled  to  85.2  per  cent  and  gets  84.11  per  cer 
of  the  total  quotas  while  the  "new"  immigration  is  entitle 
to  14.62  per  cent  and  gets  14.88  per  cent  of  the  total.  Froi 
this  it  is  obvious  that  there  is  little  difference  between  th 
results  obtained  with  either  plan  as  the  basis, — so  far  g 
the  two  types  are  concerned. 

While  it  is  thus  true  that  the  percentages  of  foreign-bor 
Americans  from  northern  and  western  Europe  and  fror 
southern  and  eastern  Europe  under  the  1890  census  ar 
substantially  the  same  as  the  percentages  of  Americans 
native  as  well  as  foreign  born,  whose  ancestors  came  fror 
those  two  grand  divisions  of  that  continent,  yet  this  is  nc 
true  for  many  of  the  separate  countries  of  the  two  divisions 

In  a  study  of  the  population  of  the  United  States,'^ 
Mr.  John  B.  Trevor  has  analyzed  our  racial  compositio: 
and  reached  the  results,  indicated  in  the  table  on  page  27c 
However,  it  is  a  mere  approximation. 

If  this  national  origin  plan  should  ever  go  into  effect  it  i 
most  certain  to  lead  to  claims  of  discrimination  and  t- 
many  hard  feelings.  Furthermore,  while  the  English  an< 
Germans  are  easily  assimilated,  yet  such  a  large  percentag 
from  any  one  or  two  countries  may  not  be  as  good  for  u 
as  is  the  case  under  the  census  of  1890  by  which  metho( 
the  total  old  immigi^ation  is  divided  into  what  will  seem  U\ 
the  nationalities  concerned  as  a  fairer  distribution.  Als«j 
the  present  quotas  based  on  the  census  of  1890  will  creati 
fewer  problems  for  us.    The  object  desired  seems  to  b 

"International  Concilmtion,  No.  202,  September,  1924. 


Analysis  Oi'  the 


rorULATlON  OP   THE  UNITED   STATES  BaSED   UPON    THE   1920  CeNSU^ 


Gountry  of  birth 


Descend- 
ants of 
colonial 
stock  enu- 
merated in 
1st  census, 
1790. and 
descendants 
of  arrivals 

between 
1790-1820 
(numerical 
equivalent) 


Foreign 
white  stock 
foreign 
born  ;  na- 
tive born  of 

foreign 
parentage 
and  native 
born  of 
mixed 
parentage 


lilbania   

Armenia   

lustria   

Jelgium  .  

Bulgaria  .... 
"zeclioslovakia 

rJanzig   

)enmark  .... 
isthonia  .... 

''inland   

•'iume   

"ranee   

3ermany  .... 
3reat  Britain  and 

North  Ireland 
[rish  Free  State 

Greece   

Hungary   

Iceland   

[taly   

Latvia   

Lithuania   

Luxemburg  .... 
Netherlands    . . . 

Norway   

Poland   

Portugal   

Rumania   

Russia   

Spain   

Sweden   

Switzerland  . . . 
Yugoslavia  .... 
San  Marino  .... 

■  Andorra   

Leichtenstein    . . 

Monaco  

Palestine  

Syria   

Turkey   

Hejaz   

Persia   

E^ypt   

Liberia   

Abyssinia  .... 

Morocco   

Union  of  South 

Africa   

Australia   

New    Zealand  and 

Pacific  Islands.  . 

Canada   

Newfoundland  .  . . 
West  Indies 

Mexico   

Central  and  South 

America  . 

Black   

Mulatto  .... 
Indians  .... 
Chinese  ... 
Japanese  .  . 
All  others  . 


294,518 
2,768,47.3 


44,017,828 
650,798 


1,227,160 


127,625 


Native  born 
of  native 
parentage 

contributed 

by  arrivals 
between 
1820-1900 
(numerical 

equivalent) 


7,461 

44,042 
1,249,852 
132,195 
14,485 
783,946 
15,066 
511,906 
196,187 
302,931 
875 
556,202 
6,779,598 

4,875,370 

2,991,273 
236,150 
854,816 
6,351 

3,365,261 
224,213 
272,259 
49,600 
383,568 

1,063,147 

2,675,878 
137,399 
138,266 

2,362,247 
83,756 

1,521,153 
374,611 
345,284 
1,010 


5,382 
87,733 
25,243 
359 
1,974 
2,241 


1,245 
28,020 

9,714 
2,703,055 
27,565 
47,872 
726,463 

21,833 


899 
66,241 
17,498 

'  41,774 
2,679 
64,078 
4,043 
6,548 
51 

231,679 
2,625,303 

2,854,482 
1,421,895 
1,091 
45.917 


Total   49,086,402  36,398,958  9,335,555 


153,901 


107,196 
4,673 
7,817 
3,601 
67,735 
187,548 
83,163 
13,21 
1,09 
72,422 
9,336 
218,574 
99,929 
16,522 
32 


1,091 


5,241 


793,998 
6,301 
22,634 
72,808 

12,183 


144,266 


Colored 
races 


Total 


Quota  on 
basis  of 
150,000  Act 
of  1924. 
Sec.  11 
Sub-Sec. 

(b), 
effective 
fuly  1,  192': 


7,461 
44,941 
1,316,093 
149,093 
14,485 
825,720 
17,745 
575,984 
200,230 
309,479 
926 
1,082,399 
12,173,374 

51,747,680 
5,063,966 
237,241 
900,733 
6,351 
3,472,457 
228,886 
280,076 
53,201 
1,678,463 
1,250,695 
2,759,041 
150,615 
139,357 
2,434,669 
93,092 
1,867,352 
474,540 
361,806 
1,042 


8,802,577 
1,000,5 
244,437 
61,639 
111,010 
9,488 


10,889,705 


5,382 
87,733 
26,334 
359 
1,974 
2,241 


1,245 
33,261 

9,714 

3,497,053 
33,866 
70,506 
799,271 

34,016 
8,802,577 
1,660,554 
244,437 
61,639 
111,010 
307,655 


105,710,620 


100 
100 

2,171 
251 
100 

1,359 
100 
945 
325 
517 
100 

1,772 
20,028 

85,135 
8,330 
384 
1,521 
100 
5,716, 
384 
458 
100 
2,762 
2,053 
4,535 
236 
222 
4,002 
148 
3,072 
783 
591 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 

100 
100 

100 


150,000 


273 


274  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


not  to  admit  more  or  less  of  any  particular  nation  bu 
to  limit  all,  but  especially  new  immigration,  in  an  effective 
and  practical  manner. 

Grouping  of  immigrants  by  countries  of  origin  does  no 
give,  or  rather  it  conceals,  information  as  to  the  racial  ele 
ments  making  up  our  immigration  tide.  For  this  reasoij 
care  must  be  exercised  by  bearing  in  mind  exactly  what  thii ; 
arbitrary  grouping  really  means.  National  origin  is  noi 
always  the  same  as  identity  of  race.  Politics  often  cu^ 
through  and  separate  a  race.  The  same  race  is  not  infre- 
^  quently  found  organized  in  more  than  one  nationality 
Thus,  country  of  origin  or  nationality  as  determined  bj 
political  boundaries  or  governmental  jurisdiction  bears  nc 
constant  or  necessary  relation  whatever  to  race  but  ii 
usually  an  artificial  result  of  historical  causes.  Politica 
boundaries,  moreover,  may  not  often  be  national;  they  are 
too  often  merely  governmental. 

The  national  origin  plan  means  that  we  would  have  tc 
abandon  a  practical  method  and  adopt  something  which  w( 
do  not  know  anything  about.  As  Chairman  Johnson  statec 
in  the  House,  'Tt  appears  to  be  a  stalling  plan.  It  is  a 
postponement.  It  means  three  more  years  of  struggle."  II 
was  put  into  the  law  in  order  to  get  the  legislation  through 
in  time,  for  something  had  to  be  done  and  the  Senate  stooc 
behind  its  author. 

In  the  first  monograph  from  the  census,  entitled  ^Tncrease 
of  population  in  the  United  States  from  1910  to  1920'' 
there  are  fully  a  hundred  pages  devoted  to  an  effort  tc 
discover  the  nationalities  of  the  stock  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States.  No  definite  plan  was  worked  out  for  it 
was  impossible  to  do  so  and  yet  we  must  have  some  base 
to  start  with.  It  is  not  going  to  be  an  easy  matter  to  come 
to  some  sort  of  artificial  conclusion  as  to  a  basis  and  it  is 
going  to  take  years  to  do  so.  Its  advocates  confessed  this 
weakness  when  they  acknowledged  that  they  did  not  possess 
any  definite  figures.  Three  years  were  allowed  to  solve  the 
problem  but  as  yet  no  satisfactory  solution  has  been 
reached.   Congressman  Box  seems  to  have  stated  the  facts 


BACK  TO  1890 


275 


correctly  when  he  characterized  the  plan  as  'indefinite,  un- 
certain and  illy  digested,"  while  Chairman  Johnson  stated 
that  under  the  1890  plan  you  know  what  you  are  doing 
khile  under  the  national  origin  plan  you  go  after  ''interest- 
ng  but  uncertain  dreams." 

In  an  article  in  the  New  York  Times  Mr.  A.  H.  Ulm 
pointed  out  that  the  preparation  of  the  estimates  of  na- 
ional  origins  involves  countless  difficulties,  some  of  which 
ire  as  follows:  The  first  complete  census  was  not  taken 
mtil  1790.  No  records  of  immigration  by  nationality  were 
tept  until  1820.  The  total  number  of  foreign  born  in  the 
ijountry  was  not  listed  by  country  of  origin  until  1850. 
The  recording  of  the  country  of  origin  of  persons  born  here 
)f  foreign-born  parents  was  not  started  until  1890.  He 
ndicated,  furthermore,  that  there  is  the  difficulty  of  classi- 
'■ying  the  millions  of  persons  of  mixed  stock.^^ 
'  The  Secretaries  of  State,  Commerce  and  Labor  in  their 
report  to  the  President  stated  that  ''the  statistical  and 

F historical  information  available  raises  gi^ave  doubts  as  to 
the  whole  value  of  these  computations  as  a  basis  for  the 
purposes  intended."  Mr.  Herbert  Hoover,  Secretary  of 
T'ommerce,  reiterated  on  January  11,  1927  the  convictions 
'xpressed  in  his  letter  transmitting  the  census  data  on  the 
national  origins  of  the  population  of  this  country,  that 
the  historical  and  statistical  data  on  the  subject  were  "very 
feeble." 

After  quoting  various  authorities  on  the  subject  of  na- 
tional origins,^-  Senator  Shipstead  stated:  "I  find  that  we 
i  have  not  sufficient  official  or  other  data  upon  which  to 
I  determine  the  quota  of  each  country  upon  this  basis  and 
.  that  it  would  lead  to  discrimination  between  nationalities, 
t  which  is  just  what  Congress  diligently  endeavored  to  avoid 
I  in  passing  the  immigration  act  of  1924."  As  early  as  June 
24,  1925  the  Director  of  the  Census,  Mr.  Steuart,  stated  that 

"  Oct.  10,  1926. 

.    "*For  a  detailed  verification  of  these  statements  see  Congressional 
Record,  February  1,  1927,  pap:e  2747. 
I      United  States  Daily,  January  12,  1927. 
I   ^Congressional  Record,  February  1,  1927,  pp.  2746-2750. 


276  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


''there  are  no  figures  in  existence  which  show  completely 
the  national  origin  of  the  population  of  the  United  States.' 

The  Commissioner-General  of  Immigration  in  his  annua 
reports  for  1925  and  1926  recommended  the  repeal  o: 
the  national  origins  provision  and  the  continuation  of  th( 
present  1890  quota  basis.  He  stated  in  the  latter  repon 
that  ''the  advantages  of  the  present  method,  for  adminis- 
trative purposes,  are  its  simplicity  and  certainty,  and  th( 
further  fact  that  it  is  well  established  by  practice.'' 

Under  leave  granted  to  him  to  extend  his  remarks  Con 
gressman  Albert  Johnson  discussed  the  national  origins 
provision  in  some  detail.^^  He  stated:  'The  determina 
tion  of  quotas  under  the  national  origins  provision  is  ar 
executive  function,  and  under  the  law  the  Secretaries  o: 
State,  Commerce  and  Labor  are  charged  with  the  responsi 
bility  of  ascertaining  the  ratio  numbers  to  be  used  in  cal- 
culating quotas  to  be  proclaimed  by  the  President.  Th( 
law,  however,  is  peculiarly  worded.    It  says: 

Such  officials  shall,  jointly,  report  to  the  President  the  quota  of  eacl 
nationality,  determined  as  provided  in  subdivision  (b),  and  the  Presiden 
shall  proclaim  and  make  known  the  quotas  so  reported.  Such  proclamatioi 
shall  be  made  on  or  before  April  1,  1927. 

But  the  law  says  further: 

If  the  proclamation  is  not  made  on  or  before  such  date,  quotas  pro 
claimed  therein  shall  not  be  in  effect  for  any  fiscal  year  beginning  befor 
the  expiration  of  90  days  after  the  date  of  the  proclamation.  ...  If  for  anv 
reasons  quotas  proclaimed  under  this  subdivision  are  not  in  effect  for  an: 
fiscal  year,  quotas  for  such  year  shall  be  determined  under  subdivisioi 
(a)  of  this  section. 

In  other  words,  if  the  national  origins  provision  does  nc 
become  operative,  the  existing  arrangement  shall  continue 

It  must  be  clear  that,  upon  the  adoption  of  the  nationa 
origins  provision  by  the  Senate  and  House  conferees  ir| 
1924,  consideration  was  given  the  possibility  that  ascer  , 
tainment  of  national  origins  might  not  be  feasible,  and  th( 
above  language  was  employed  to  provide  authority  for  the 
continuance  of  existing  quotas  in  such  a  contingency. 

•"Piige  29.  "Page  22. 

C ongrcHHional  Record,  Tuesday,  June  29,  1926. 


^  BACK  TO  1890  277 

I  It  follows,  therefore,  that  notwithstanding  the  manda- 
Itory  terms  apparently  requiring  that  national  origin  quotas 
pe  determined,  and  that  report  be  made  to  the  President, 
'and  requiring  also  the  issuance  of  a  presidential  proclama- 
Ition  on  or  before  April  1,  1927,  the  new  quota  basis  need 
not  become  effective  at  all. 

At  this  time  I  do  not  propose  to  discuss  the  propriety  of 
readjusting  quotas  upon  the  national  origins  basis,  or  the 
desirability  of  the  provision  in  the  law,  or  the  possibility 
of  its  repeal. 

I  do  not  know  of  a  certainty  what  quotas  may  be  ex- 
ipected  to  be  assigned  to  particular  nationalities  in  the  event 
J  that  the  provision  becomes  operative.  Various  computa- 
tions have  been  made,  but  all  are  estimates  merely.  No 
one  of  them  is  entitled  to  be  considered  as  certain  of 
adoption.  .  .  . 

Since  the  enactment  of  the  immigration  act  of  1924  the 
press  has  given  some  attention  to  the  national  origins  pro- 
vision, and  because  there  is  much  misinformation  concern- 
ing it  I  am  inserting  in  these  remarks  a  brief  statement 
of  the  legislative  history  of  the  matter. 
I    This  information  is  as  follows: 

LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY  OF  NATIONAL  ORIGINS  PROVISION 

(Note:   All  page  numbers  relate  to  the  Congressional 
RECORD^^ermanent  edition,  68th  Cong.,  1st  sess.) 

The  national  origins  provision  of  the  immigration  act  of  1924  was  first 
offered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  by  the  late  Representative  Rogers 
of  Massachusetts,  April  11  and  12,  1924,  during  debate  on  the  immigration 
bill,  H.  R.  7995.  The  House  rejected  the  Rogers  amendment.  (Record, 
pp.  6110,  6111,  6226-6229.) 

During  debate  on  the  immigration  bill  in  the  Senate,  April  14,  1924,  the 
proposition  in  slightly  different  language  was  presented  by  Senator  Reed 
of  Pennsylvania.  (Record,  p.  6316.)  After  amendment  it  was  agreed  to 
in  the  Senate  on  April  14.  1924.    (Record,  pp.  6471,  6472.) 

The  only  presentation  of  the  subject  matter  in  a  committee  hearing  be- 
fore enactment  of  the  immigration  act  of  1924  was  on  March  8,  1924,  when 
John  B.  Trevor  testified  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  Immigration. 
(See  hearing  entitled  'Selective  Immigration  Legislation,'  Committee  on 
Immigration,  United  States  Senate,  68th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  on  S.  2365  and 
S.  2576,  p.  89.) 

^  Having  been  accepted  by  the  Senate  (April  16,  1924)  and  rejected  by 


278  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


the  House  (April  12,  1924),  the  national  origins  provision  became  a  subjedt 
for  consideration  of  the  committee  of  conference,  which  revised  the  text  ol 
the  entire  bill,  amended  and  accepted  the  national  origins  provision,  anc< 
submitted  its  report  (H.  Rept.  No.  688)  to  the  House  on  May  9,  1924. 

The  conference  report  was  debated  in  the  House  that  day  and  the< 
national  origins  provision  was  discussed  by  Representative  Sab.\th  (Record. 
pp.  8230,  8231),  and  by  Representative  Dickstein  (Record,  pp.  8238,  8239). 

The  bill  was  recommitted  to  the  committee  of  conference  (Record,  p.. 
8249)  and  was  again  brought  before  the  House  in  a  second  conference  re-  i 
port  (H.  Rept.  No.  716)  submitted  May  15,  1924.  (Record,  p.  8627.)  In 
debate  on  the  second  conference  report  the  national  origins  provision  was 
discussed  by  Representative  Sabath  (Record,  pp.  8634,  8635) ;  by  Represen- 
tative Wefald  (Record,  pp.  8635,  8636) ;  by  Representative  Dickstein 
(Record,  p.  8637);  and  by  Representative  Watkins  (Record,  p.  6850). 

The  second  conference  report  was  submitted  in  the  Senate  on  May  15, 
1924  (Record,  p.  8568).  The  national  origins  provision  was  mentioned: 
briefly  by  Senator  Harrison  (Record,  p.  8580)."®° 

The  national  origins  provision  was  frequently  before 
both  houses  of  the  Sixt^z-ninth  Congress,  Second  Session. 
On  February  1,  1927,  the  Senate,  without  a  record  vote,, 
adopted  Senate  Joint  Resolution  No.  152,  introduced  by 
Senator  Johnson,  of  California,  which  would  postpone  the 
effective  date  of  the  national  origins  clause  from  April  1, 
1927  to  April  1,  1928.   This  resolution  was  amended  by  the  \ 
House  Committee  on  Immigration  to  provide  for  the  entire  \ 
repeal  of  the  national  origins  provision.    The  resolution 
(S.  J.  Res.  No.  152)  was  then  reported  favorably  to  the  ^ 
House  on  February  9,  1927.    In  its  report,  the  House 
Committee  stated  that  according  to  the  commission,  ^'the' 
statistical  and  historical  information  available  raises  grave, 
doubts  as  to  the  whole  value  of  these  computations  as  a( 
basis  for  the  purposes  intended."  ^'^   On  March  3  the  House 
passed  the  resolution  without  the  amendment.   The  Presi- 
dent approved  it  on  March  4,  1927. 

The  debate  in  the  Senate  brought  out  some  interesting 
information  on  the  subject. Senator  Reed  of  Pennsyl- 
vania defended  the  plan  while  Senator  Reed  of  Missouri 
and  other  Senators  subjected  it  to  sharp  criticism. 

"  A  bibliography  prepared  by  the  Library  of  Congress  for  Congressman 
Johnson  is  in  the  author's  bibliography  under  the  title  "National  Origins." 

''For  much  detailed  information,  see  Hearings  of  the  House  Committee 
on  "National  Origins  Provision,"  January  18,  19,  and  26,  1927.  Hearing 
No.  69.2.1.    Sixty-ninth  Congress,  Second  Session. 

'^Congressional  Record  for  Feb.  1,  1927,  pp.  2737  to  2750. 


BACK  TO  1890 


279 


Excerpts  from  the  debate  follow : 

Mr.  Reed  of  Pennsylvania:  If  the  "national  origins'^ 
method  is  repealed,  it  will  allow  an  immigration  of  about 
164,000  annually.  If  it  goes  into  effect,  it  will  cut  down 
the  immigration  to  153,000. 

Mr.  Caraway  (Dem.),  Ark.:  Of  course,  that  question  is 
not  up  now ;  but  I  am  very  much  opposed  to  an  increase  of 
immigration. 

Mr.  Lenroot  (Rep.),  Wis.:  Mr.  President,  is  not  this  the 
situation?  Those  who  desire  the  repeal  of  the  law — and  I 
lam  one  of  them — merely  desire  to  have  the  immigration 
remain  permanently  as  it  is  under  the  law  applied  today? 
'    Mr.  Reed  of  Pennsylvania:  Exactly. 

Mr.  Johnson  (Rep.),  Calif.:  Exactly.  We  remain  exactly 
as  we  are  today,  with  no  increase,  no  difference,  for  one 
year. 

Mr.  Bruce  (Dem.),  Md.:  Mr.  President,  may  I  ask  the 
Senator  from  California  what  is  the  motive  back  of  it?  Is 
it  the  idea  that  the  time  is  too  short  to  work  out  this 

I  "national  origins"  idea? 

'    Mr.  Johnson:  There  are  three  motives: 

'  First,  the  President  is  required  under  the  law,  and  as- 
sumes the  law  to  be  mandatory,  as  we  understand,  to  issue 
his  proclamation  on  the  1st  day  of  April.    That  is  No.  1. 

'  Either  we  must  take  affirmative  action  or  he  issues  his 

'  proclamation. 

i'  No.  2.  The  time  is  so  limited  that  the  contest  that  is 
I  obvious  upon  the  subject  matter  cannot  be  disposed  of. 

No.  3  is  that  the  data  upon  which  a  law  concerning  "na- 
'  tional  origins"  would  be  predicated  are  so  insufficient  and 
I  so  inadequate  that  even  the  President  in  his  message  says 
we  can  scarcely  predicate  anything  upon  them. 

Mr.  Bruce:  The  effect  of  the  proposition,  then,  is  simply 
to  postpone  the  date? 

Mr.  Johnson:  Entirely;  to  leave  matters  exactly  as  they 
are,  and  postpone  the  date  for  one  year. 

Mr.  Reed  (Dem.),  Mo.:  Mr.  President,  when  these 
illuminating  interruptions  came  I  was  about  to  say  that  I 


280 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


have  examined  the  report  which  is  transmitted  by  the 
President  to  the  Congress;  and  the  report  having  been 
made  with  reference  to  the  question  of  ''national  origins," 
anyone  who  will  examine  that  report  will  understand  that 
at  best  it  furnishes  only  the  loosest  kind  of  a  guess  as  to 
the  origins  of  the  present  population  of  the  United  States. 
A  moment's  consideration  will  show  how  difficult  the  prob- 
lem would  be. 

A  man  whose  ancestors  or  some  of  whose  ancestors  have 
been  in  this  country  four  or  five  generations  finds  as  many 
crosses  of  blood,  and  each  of  these  crosses  of  blood  finds 
as  many  crosses  in  its  own  instance;  and  the  result  is  that 
it  is  very  difficult  to  say,  as  to  any  man  whose  ancestors 
came  here  a  century  ago,  that  they  are  of  English  stock,  or 
Irish  stock,  or  Scotch  stock,  or  German  stock,  because  there 
may  intermingle  in  his  veins  the  blood  of  a  half-dozen 
different  races. 

So  that  the  proposition  of  selecting  people  by  race-origin 
is  impossible,  for  there  are  probably  men  in  this  Chamber' 
who  have  four  or  five  different  national  bloods  in  their 
veins;  and  this  commission  undertook  to  guess  it  off  by  the 
number  of  people  of  known  national  origin  at  some  certain 
time  in  the  country,  and  then  presuming  that  their  pos- 
terity continued  in  that  ratio. 

It  is  the  wildest  kind  of  a  guess.  The  national-origins 
law  is  the  most  impractical  thing  I  ever  saw  written  into  a 
law,  and  it  opens  the  door  for  all  kinds  of  unfairness  and 
injustice. 

According  to  this  schedule  which  was  prepared,  we  are 
nearly  all  English;  the  great  percentage  of  our  population 
is  English.  Everybody  with  a  little  bit  of  common-sense 
knows  that  is  not  true.   The  law  ought  to  be  changed. 

For  instance,  under  the  present  law,  as  shown  by  this 
report,  there  can  be  admitted  from  Germany  51,227;  under 
the  proposed  change  only  23,428.^^ 

From  Great  Britain  and  northern  Ireland — they  divide 
northern  Ireland  now  from  southern  Ireland,  I  presume, 
because  it  happens  to  be  politically  separated — under  the 

*  The  following  abbreviated  table,  taken  from  the  Quota  Board's  report 
of  December  16,  1926,  shows  the  provisional  national  origins  quotas  for 


BACK  TO  1890 


281 


present  law  there  can  be  admitted  34,007,  and  under  the 
new  allotment  73,039. 

Mr.  McKellar  (Dem.),  Tenn.:  What  about  the  Irish 
Free  State? 

Mr.  Reed  of  Missouri:  The  Irish  Free  State,  under  the 
present  law,  is  permitted  to  send  here  28,567;  under  the 
new  allotment,  13,862. 

I  Let  us  take  Denmark.  We  are  getting  into  the  Scandi- 
navian country  now,  speaking  broadly.  Its  quota,  under 
'the  present  law,  was  2,789;  under  the  proposed  change  it 
is  only  1,044. 

Coming  to  Norway,  under  the  present  law  its  quota  is 
6,453;  under  the  proposed  new  allotment  2,267. 

The  allotment  of  Sweden  under  the  present  law  is  9,561. 
Under  the  proposed  new  allotment  it  is  3,259. 

Mr.  Bruce:  If  the  Senator  has  the  figures  before  him, 
will  he  tell  us  how  the  new  plan  affects  the  Italian 
immigration? 

I  Mr.  Reed  of  Missouri:  Under  the  present  law  the  quota 
of  Italy  is  3,845.   Under  the  proposed  allotment  it  is  6,091. 

Speaking  generally,  the  schedules  as  I  look  at  them  are 
inoi  changes  for  the  better. 

Mr.  Reed  of  Pennsylvania:  Mr.  President,  will  the  Sena- 
tor yield? 

Mr.  Reed  of  Missouri:  Yes. 
I    Mr.  Reed  of  Pennsylvania:  As  one  of  those  who  helped 

'  the  principal  quota  countries  as  compared  with  the  1890  quotas  for  the 
same  countries. 


Provisional 

Present 

quotas  on 

quotas  based 

County  of  origin 

basis  of  na- 

on 1890  for- 

tional origin. 

eign  born 

population. 

,   ,  1,486 

785 

2,248 

3,073 

Denmark   

1,044 

2,789 

Great  Britain  and  Northern  Ireland  . 

73,639 

34,007 

Germany   

23,428 

51,227 

Irish  Free  State   

13,862 

28,567 

Italy   

6,091 

3.845 

Netherlands   

2.421 

1.648 

Norway   

2.267 

6,453 

Poland   

4,978 

5,982 

Rumania   

516 

603 

4,781 

2,248 

Sweden   

3,259 

9,561 

Switzerland  

1,198 

2,081 

282  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


in  its  origination,  I  think  I  might  fairly  claim  that  it  did' 
occur  to  us  that  a  man  has  one  father  and  one  mother, 
and  some  of  the  other  profound  truths  the  Senator  has  justi 
blessed  us  with. 

Mr.  Reed  of  Missouri:  I  wonder  why  the  Senator  did  noti 
follow  some  of  these  profound  truths.  Was  it  because  they ! 
were  truths  that  he  shied  from  them? 

Mr.  Reed  of  Pennsylvania:  No;  because  the  Census  Bu- 
reau, which  knows  almost  as  much  about  these  subjects  as 
the  Senator  from  Missouri,  told  us  that  it  was  possible  with 
reasonable  accuracy  to  determine  the  national  origins  of 
the  present  population,  and  because  it  was  self-evident  that 
no  method  of  basing  the  quotas  on  the  foreign  born  alone 
did  justice  to  the  native  born  of  America,  and  every  other 
scheme  that  has  ever  been  suggested  based  them  on  the 
number  of  foreign  born  in  this  country.  We  thought  that 
we,  who  were  born  in  this  country,  had  at  least  as  much 
right  to  be  reflected  in  the  quota  as  had  recently  arrived 
immigrants. 

Mr.  Shipstead:  The  Senator  from  Pennsylvania  said 
that  the  Census  Bureau  has  claimed  that  they  had  some 
formula  or  system  by  which  they  could  arrive  at  definite 
data  giving  us  information  of  the  national  origins  of  our 
population.  I  think  they  made  that  claim  at  the  time  of 
the  passage  of  the  immigration  act.  The  committee  which 
under  the  law  was  charged  with  the  work  of  gathering  these 
data  obtained  their  figures  from  the  Bureau  of  the  Census, 
and  a  report  from  them  has  been  submitted  by  the  Presi- 
dent to  Congress.  ...  I  think  it  is  fair  to  assume  that  the 
committee  composed  of  the  three  secretaries  had  all  the 
data  and  formulas  made  available  by  the  Bureau  of  the 
Census  and  that  they  made  use  of  them.  I  should  like  to 
know  if  the  Senator  from  Pennsylvania  has  any  additional  | 
information  upon  which  to  base  an  argument  that  other  I 
formulas  or  other  data  are  available  now  which  will  bolster 
the  argument  for  the  national  origins  clause. 

Mr.  Reed  of  Pennsylvania:  The  Director  of  the  Census  , 
within  a  few  days  has  testified  before  the  House  Committee  j 
that  the  margin  of  error  in  the  figures  which  have  been 
published  is  very  small,  and  that  if  the  benefit  of  the  doubt 


BACK  TO  1890 


283 


Immigration  Quotas. 

Provisional  immigration  quotas  based  on  national  origin  as  provided  by 
the  immigration  act  of  1924;  also  present  immigration  quotas  as  based 
on  1890  foreign-born  population;  and  estimated  quotas  on  national- 
origin  basis  as  submitted  to  Congress  when  the  act  of  1924  was  under 
consideration. 


Country  of  origin 


Provisional 
quotas  on 
basis  of 
national 
origin 


Present 
quotas 
based  on 

1890 
foreign- 
born 
population 


Total 


153,541 


164,667 


Afghanistan   

Albania   

Andorra  

Arabian  Peninsula   

Armenia   

\ustraha,  etc  

Austria  

Belgium  

Bhutan   

Bulgaria   

Cameroon  (British)   

Cameroon  (French)   

China   

Czechoslovakia   

Danzig   

Denmark  

Egypt   

Esthonia   

Ethiopia  (Abyssinia)   

■  Finland   

France   

Germany  

Great  Britain  and  Northern  Ireland 
i  Greece   

Hungary   

Iceland  

,  India  

Iraq  (Mesopotamia)   

Irish  Free  State  

Italy,  etc  

Japan   

Latvia   

Liberia  

Liechtenstein  

Lithuania   

Luxemburg  

Monaco   

Morocco   

Muscat  (Oman)   

Nauru   


100 
100 
100 
100 


100 

1,486 
410 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 

2,248 
122 

1,044 
100 
109 
100 
559 

3,837 
23,428 
73,039 
367 
967 
100 
100 
100 
13,862 

6,091 
100 
184 
100 
100 
494 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 


100 
100 
100 
100 
124 
121 
785 
512 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 

3,073 
228 

2,789 
100 
124 
100 
471 

3,954 
51,227 
34,007 
100 
473 
100 
100 

.  100 
2^,567 

3,845 
100 
142 
100 
100 
344 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 


284  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


Country  of  origin 


Nepal  

Netherlands   

New  Zealand,  etc.   

Norway   

New  Guinea,  etc  , 

Palestine  

Persia   

Poland   

Portugal   

Ruanda  and  Urundi  . 

Rumania   

Russia   

Samoa,  western  

San  Marino   

Siam   

South  Africa,  Union  of 
South  West  Africa  . . 

Spain   

Sweden   

Switzerland   

Syria  and  the  Lebanon 

Tanganyika   

•Togoland  (British) 
Togoland  (French)  .. 

Turkey   

Yap,  etc  , 

Yugoslavia   


Provisional 
quotas  on 
basis  of 
national 
origin 


100 
2,421 
100 
2,267 
100 
100 
100 
4,978 
290 
100 
516 
4,781 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
674 
3,259 
1,198 
100 
100 
100 
100 
233 
100 
777 


Present 
quotas 
based  on 

1890 
foreign- 
born 
population 


100 
1,648 
100 
6,453 
100 
100 
100 
5,982 
503 
lOO 
603 
2,248 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
131 
9,561 
2,081 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
671 


Estimated 
quotas  on 
national 

origin 
basis  as 
submitted 
to  Congres 
in  1924 


were  given  the  protesting  nationalities,  the  figures  would 
still  be  substantially  as  they  are  here.*^^ 

The  evidence  thus  seems  to  be  overwhelmingly  against 
the  use  of  ''national  origins"  as  the  quota  basis,  for,  how- 
ever good  the  national  origins  plan  may  sound  in  theory,i 
this  is  not  a  time  for  experimenting.  The  census  of  189(1 
gives  us  a  practical,  definite  basis  and  virtually  the  same 
ultimate  results,  as  between  the  two  great  regions  of  Europe. 

In  a  speech  at  the  Hotel  Astor  March  25,  1924,  Hon. 
Henry  H.  Curran,  former  commissioner  of  immigration  at 
Ellis  Island,  stated:  ^'I  am  for  the  1890  measure.  It 
helps  us  to  become  more  homogeneous  by  sending  to  us 

Congressional  Record,  February  1,  1927,  pp.  2741-2742. 


BACK  TO  1890 


285 


ievery  year  a  miniature  or  replica  of  that  which  we  are 
(already  according  to  original  national  stock.  The  1890 
measure  is  the  soundest,  the  healthiest,  the  fairest,  and 
the  best." 

The  Immigration  Restriction  League  advocates  the  na- 
tional origins  plan  for  the  following  reasons : 

"There  can  be  little  doubt,  after  studying  the  debates  in  Congress  at  the 
time  the  Immigration  Act  was  passed,  that  the  purpose  was  the  same  with 
J-espect  to  both  the  National  Origins  and  1890  bases;  namely,  to  ensure  that 
0ur  future  immigration  should  correspond  in  its  make-up  with  our  popula- 
tion as  it  is  today.  ...  As  between  the  two  great  regions  (from  which  the 
bid  and  new  immigration  comes),  the  1890  Census  basis  produced  results 
^hich  are  only  shghtly  different  from  those  reached  on  the  national  origins 
basis  as  recently  reported  by  the  Quota  Board.  However,  the  1890  basis 
'  does  not  work  out  -fairly  with  respect  to  individual  countries  within  these 
groups, — more  especially  with  respect  to  Great  Britain,  Germany  and  the 
Irish  Free  State.  .  .  .  While  about  one-half  of  our  total  white  population 
is  derived  from  England,  Scotland,  Wales,  and  North  Ireland,  their  joint 
quota  is  only  one-fifth  of  the  quota  immigration,  while  Germany,  from 
which  only  about  one-sixth  of  our  population  is  derived,  has  a  quota  of 
nearly  one-third  of  the  total  immigration.  Discrepancies,  although  less  in 
i'Xtent,  exist  with  respect  to  all  other  countries  under  the  1890  census  system 
now  in  effect.  By  the  application  of  the  national  origins  system  all  ine- 
qualities will  be  corrected." 

In  reply  to  a  question  from  Senator  Robinson  concern- 
ing the  difference  between  the  1890  census  and  the  national 
origins  plans,  Senator  Reed  of  Pennsylvania  stated:  '^^ 
''There  is  almost  no  difference  between  the  result  of  the 
1890  method  and  the  result  of  the  proposal  I  have  just  been 
)  outlining.'' 

I ;   The  results  being  virtually  the  same  for  the  old  and  new 
I  immigration,  the  difference  must  be  in  the  means  to  the 
■end.'^^    In  making  our  choice  of  methods  it  would  seem 
■better,  therefore,  to  select  the  more  practical  and  definite 
fclan,  viz.,  the  indefinite  continuation  of  the  1890  census  as 
■the  quota  basis.   This  would  necessitate  striking  out  para- 
Igraphs  (b),  (c),  (d)  and  (e)  of  section  xi  of  the  immigra- 
Ition  act  of  1924.    Thereby  we  would  eliminate  from  the 
present  law  its  main  weakness.    Such  would  seem  to  be 
jthe  ultimate  action  that  Congress  should  and  will  take  on 
the  subject. 

"^Congressional  Record,  Vol.  65,  pt.  6,  p.  5475. 
\  ''^Congressional  Record,  Vol.  65,  pt.  6,  p.  5468. 

"  The  old  immigration  today  as  a  whole  creates  virtually  no  problems. 
(See  supra,  p.  218.)  The  changes  proposed  for  the  different  nations, 
until  based  on  more  accurate  statistics,  should,  therefore,  be  delayed  in 
the  author's  opinion. 


CHAPTER  IX 


Chinese  Immigration 

Causes  of  early  opposition  to  Chinese — Early  state  and  municipal  legis- 
lation against  them — Early  treaties — The  Burlingame  treaty  of  1868— 
President  Grant's  recommendation — Congressional  investigation — The 
Committee's  report— Act  of  1875— The  treaty  of  1880— Act  of  1882— Act 
of  1884— The  unratified  tr2aty  of  1888— Acts  of  1888— Cases— Act  of  189^ 
—Cases— Act  of  1893— Treaty  of  1894— Act  of  1894— Acts  of  1900— Act  ol 
1902 — Act  of  1904 — Conclusions  on  Chinese  immigration — Act  of  1917— 
Hindu  immigration. 

No  treatment  of  the  development  of  America's  immigra- 
tion policy  would  be  complete  without  reference  to  oui 
legislation  on  Asiatic  immigration.  It  is  intended  in  this 
and  the  next  chapter  only  to  trace  the  course  of  this  legis- 
lation and  to  point  out  the  particular  grounds  on  which 
it  rests. 

The  first  great  migration  of  Chinese  laborers  to  this 
country  dated  from  the  time  of  the  great  rush  to  Californis 
in  search  of  gold  in  the  early  fifties.  Before  the  end  oi, 
the  sixties,  on  account  of  the  absence  of  cheap  labor,  they  \ 
had  gone  into  a  variety  of  occupations.  They  were  indus- 
trious, thrifty,  and  the  form  of  organization  of  the  Chinese 
laborers,  by  which  it  was  possible  for  employers  to  secure 
the  services  of  almost  any  number  desired  through  one 
contractor,  placed  a  premium  upon  their  employment 
They  were  at  first  regarded  without  aversion  by  the  othei 
immigrants  into  California.  However,  agitation  againsi 
them  began  shortly  after  their  coming  into  California  ir 
large  numbers.  The  race  antipathy  which  developed  was 
due  to  their  peculiarities  of  dress;  to  their  color,  language 
and  habits;  to  their  inoffensive  manners  and  general  de- 
fencelessness  ;^  and  also  to  the  fact  that,  in  many  cases,  they 

286 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION 


287 


were  willing  to  work  for  lower  wages  than  the  American 
laborer. 

j  This  popular  feehng  against  the  Chinaman  soon  ex- 
ipressed  itself  in  state  legislation  and  city  ordinances, 
(directed  specifically  or  indirectly  against  him.  "An  act 
iof  the  California  legislature  in  1855  imposed  a  tax  of  $55 
on  every  Chinese  immigrant.  A  subsequent  act  (1858) 
prohibited  all  persons  of  the  Chinese  or  Mongolian  races 
'  from  entering  the  state  or  landing  at  any  port  thereof, 
unless  driven  on  shore  by  stress  of  weather  or  unavoidable 
accident,  in  which  case  they  should  immediately  be  re- 
shipped.  An  act  was  passed  in  1862  providing  that  every 
Mongolian  over  eighteen  years  of  age  should  pay  a  monthly 
capitation  tax  of  $2.50,  except  those  engaged  in  the  pro- 
duction and  manufacture  of  sugar,  rice,  coffee  and  tea. 
All  of  these  acts  were  declared  unconstitutional  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Calif ornia.'^^  In  1861  an  act  was  passed 
imposing  a  tax  on  foreign  miners.  While  it  was  levelled 
nominally  against  all  foreigners,  it  was  enforced  only 
against  the  Chinese.  Furthermore,  they  could  not  escape 
it,  since  they  were  the  only  ones  who  were  not  allowed  to 
become  naturalized. 

I  In  like  manner  a  number  of  city  ordinances  were  passed 
for  the  purpose  of  reaching  the  Chinese  indirectly.^  San 
Francisco  passed  a  laundry  ordinance  imposing  a  license 
fee  of  $15  per  quarter  on  laundries  not  using  a  vehicle. 

*The  Chinese  laundries  commonly  used  no  vehicle.  Men 
who  sold  vegetables  on  the  street  from  door  to  door  were 

'required  to  pay  a  fee  of  $2  if  they  drove  a  wagon,  of  $10 
if  they  went  on  foot.  The  "queue  ordinance"  provided  that 
every  person  convicted  for  any  criminal  offense  should  have 
his  hair  cut  to  a  length  of  one  inch  from  his  head.  The 
loss  of  his  queue  was  a  lasting  disgrace  to  the  Chinaman. 
The  ''cubic  air  ordinance"  required  that  no  person  should 
let  or  hire  any  tenement  house  where  the  capacity  of  the 
rooms  was  less  than  five  hundred  cubic  feet  for  every 

*  Smith,  R.  M.,  op.  cit.,  p.  238. 
'Smith,  R.  M.,  op.  cit.,  p.  240. 


288 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


person  sleeping  there — which  was  enforced  only  against 
the  Chinese. 

The  efforts  of  the  state  of  California  to  stop  Chinese 
immigration  were  rendered  futile  by  the  decisions  of  the 
Federal  Courts.  A  California  statute  which  gave  the  state 
commissioner  of  immigration  power  to  exclude  from  the 
state  lunatics,  idiots,  deaf  and  dumb  persons,  cripples,  lewd 
and  debauched  w^omen,  etc., — the  purpose  being  to  exclude 
Chinese  prostitutes — was  declared  unconstitutional  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  The  court  held  that 
the  prohibition  or  even  regulation  of  immigration  by  a  state 
was  a  regulation  of  foreign  commerce,  and  hence  belonged 
exclusively  to  Congress.^ 

Met  at  every  turn  by  the  adverse  decisions  of  the  courts,'' 
California  finally  decided  to  appeal  to  Congress  for  national 
legislation  to  put  a  stop  to  Chinese  immigration. 

Our  political  relations  with  China  date  back  to  the  year 
1844  when  Caleb  Cushing  negotiated  the  first  treaty  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  that  country.  Neither  it  nor 
the  Reed  treaty  of  1858  said  anything  about  the  rights  of 
Chinese  trading  or  residing  in  the  United  States,  for  under 
our  laws  at  that  time  they  were  allowed  to  come  and  go 
freely,  to  engage  in  any  occupation  they  pleased;  and  if 
they  committed  crimes  they  were  subject  to  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  our  courts.  In  other  words,  they  were  coming  here 
under  exactly  the  same  conditions  as  the  citizens  of  any 
other  nation  and  enjoyed  exactly  the  same  privileges. 

By  Art.  V  of  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and 
China,  commonly  called  the  Burlingame  treaty,  concluded 
at  Washington,  July  28,  1868,  the  high  contracting  parties 
''cordially  recognize  the  inherent  and  inalienable  right  of 
man  to  change  his  home  and  allegiance,  and  also  the 
mutual  advantage  of  the  free  migration  and  emigration  of 
their  citizens  and  subjects  respectively  from  the  one  country 
to  the  other  for  purposes  of  curiosity,  of  trade  or  as  perma- 

»  Chy  Lung  v.  J.  H.  Freeman  at  al.,  92  U.  S.  Reports  275. 
*Sf3e  Soon  King  v.  Crowley,  113  U.  S.  703  and  Yick  Wo  v.  Hopkins, 
118  U.  S.  356  (1886). 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION 


289 


nent  residents;"  they  ''therefore  join  in  reprobating  any 
other  than  an  entirely  voluntary  emigration  for  these  pur- 
'  poses;"  and  ''consequently  agree  to  pass  laws  making  it  a 
penal  offense  for  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  or  Chinese 
subjects  to  take  Chinese  subjects  either  to  the  United 
'  States  or  to  any  other  foreign  country,  or  for  a  Chinese 
\  subject  or  citizen  of  the  United  States  to  take  any  citizen 
'i  of  the  United  States  to  China  or  to  any  other  foreign  coun- 
!  try  without  their  free  and  voluntary  consent,  respectively." 

Art.  VII  stated,  "But  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be 
held  to  confer  naturalization  upon  citizens  of  the  United 
States  in  China,  nor  upon  the  subjects  of  China  in  the 
United  States." 

Prior  to  this  treaty  of  1868  our  efforts  had  been  directed 
towards  compelling  the  Chinese  to  admit  Americans  to 
China  for  the  pursuit  of  trade  and  commerce.  In  this 
treaty,  however,  we  placed  ourselves  on  the  broad  platform 
of  the  right  of  free  migration  and  the  duty  of  international 
intercourse.  Shortly  after  this  declaration,  the  influx  of 
Chinese  into  this  country  caused  such  inconvenience  that 
we  immediately  turned  our  backs  on  the  principle  of  free- 
dom of  migration,  and  passed  laws  excluding  the  Chinese 
as  effectually  as  they  had  ever  excluded  foreigners.  Thus, 
m  later  years  this  treaty  became  a  source  of  embarrassment 
to  the  United  States.  The  express  declaration  that  the 
right  of  migration  is  inalienable  and  the  express  promise 
that  "the  subjects  of  China  shall  enjoy  the  same  privileges, 
immunities  and  exemptions  in  respect  to  travel  and  resi- 
dence as  may  be  enjoyed  by  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  the 
most  favored  nation,"  expressly  committed  us,  and  under 
the  most  solemn  circumstances,  to  principles  which  a  few 
years  later  we  flatly  repudiated. 

In  his  annual  message  to  Congress,  December  7,  1874, 
President  Grant  stated: 

"In  connection  with  this  subject  I  call  the  attention  of 
Congress  to  a  generally  conceded  fact,  that  the  great  pro- 
portion of  the  Chinese  immigrants  who  come  to  our  shores 
do  not  come  voluntarily  to  make  their  homes  with  us  and 


290  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


their  labor  productive  of  general  prosperity,  but  come  under 
contracts  with  head-men  who  own  them  almost  absolutely. 
In  a  worse  form  does  this  apply  to  Chinese  women.  Hardly 
a  perceptible  percentage  of  them  perform  any  honorable 
labor,  but  they  are  brought  for  shameful  purposes,  to  the 
disgrace  of  the  communities  where  settled  and  to  the  great 
demoralization  of  the  youth  of  those  localities.  If  this  evil 
practice  can  be  legislated  against,  it  will  be  my  pleasure  as 
well  as  my  duty  to  enforce  any  regulation  to  secure 'so  * 
desirable  an  end.'' 

In  a  letter  to  Mr.  G.  F.  Seward,  August  31,  1876,^  the 
Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Fish,  stated,  "The  application  of 
the  settled  principles  of  international  law  to  the  Chinese  in 
the  United  States  is  to  be  modified  by  the  fact  that  the 
Chinese  decline  to  accept  these  principles,  leading  an  isb-  j 
lated  life  in  the  communities  in  which  they  are  settled, 
always  expecting  to  return  to  China,  and  never,  therefore, 
becoming  domiciled  among  us,  and  that  they  maintain  thel 
same  system  of  isolation  towards  Americans  in  China  re- 
garding them  always  as  strangers,  more  or  less  outside  of' 
the  protection  of  the  law."  f 

The  anti-Chinese  feeling  soon  entered  into  national  poli- 
tics and  the  leaders  of  the  two  parties  yielded  to  it  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  the  vote  of  those  states.   In  1876  both 
parties  inserted  an  anti-Chinese  plank  in  their  platforms, 
and  a  special  joint  committee  of  the  Senate  and  the  House! 
of  Representatives  proceeded  to  the  Pacific  coast  to  in- 
vestigate the  question  on  the  spot,  and  formulated  a  report 
which  covered  every  phase  of  the  Chinese  question,  and  is  * 
of  value  today  in  that  it  shows  the  way  in  which  the 
Chinese  were  regarded  by  the  various  classes  of  people  in ,  i 
California.    This  report  fully  substantiated  the  chargest 
/  made  by  the  advocates  of  exclusion  of  the  Chinese. 

They  found  "that  there  was  danger  of  the  white  popula-- 
tion  of  California  becoming  outnumbered  by  the  Chinese;? 
that  they  came  here  under  contract,  in  other  words  as* 
coolies  or  a  servile  class;  that  they  were  subject  to  the 

» MS.  Inst.  China,  II  429  in  Moore's  Digest,  Vol.  IV  p.  188. 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION 


291 


jurisdiction  of  organized  companies  which  directed  their 
movements,  settled  disputes  among  them,  and  even  had 
power  of  life  and  death,  which  they  exercised  by  assassina- 
tion; that  Chinese  cheap  labor  deprived  white  labor  of 
employment,  lowered  wages,  and  kept  white  immigrants 
'  from  coming  to  the  state ;  that  the  Chinese  were  loathsome 
in  their  habits,  and  the  filth  of  their  dwellings  endangered 
[  the  health  of  the  city ;  that  they  were  vile  in  their  morals, 
land  spread  prostitution,  gambling  and  opium  habits;  that 
they  did  not  assimilate  with  the  whites,  and  never  could 
become  an  integral  and  homogeneous  part  of  the  popu- 
lation." ^ 

Some  of  these  assertions  were  perhaps  too  sweeping. 
However,  the  evidence  then  and  to  this  day  seems  to 
substantiate  the  charge  that  the  Chinese  do  not  assimilate 
with  us.  It  was  stated  by  the  committee  that  the  Chinese 
come  here' with  the  single  object  of  making  money  and  then 
returning  to  China;  that  they  have  no  intention  of  becom- 
ing permanent  residents  and  no  desire  to  adopt  our  customs 
and  habits  of  life;  that  they  have  shown  no  desire  to  become 
acquainted  with  our  political  institutions  or  to  take  part  in 
poUtical  life;  that  the  whole  history  of  the  intercourse 

i  between  China  and  the  Western  powers  has  exemplified 

I  the  fact  that,  with  their  four  thousand  years  of  civilization 
behind  them,  they  are  imbued  with  a  thorough  contempt 

'  for  the  mushroom  growth  of  European  life;  and  that  they 
remain  isolated  and  constitute  an  alien  element  in  the 
midst  of  us. 

!     The  report  closed  as  follows: 

'The  committee  recommend  that  measures  be  taken  by 
the  executive  looking  toward  a  modification  of  the  existing 
treaty  with  China,  confining  it  to  strictly  commercial  pur- 
poses; and  that  Congress  legislate  to  restrain  the  great 
influx  of  Asiatics  to  this  country.  It  is  not  believed  that 
either  of  these  measures  would  be  looked  upon  with  dis- 
favor by  the  Chinese  government.  Whether  it  is  so  or  not, 
a  duty  is  owing  to  the  Pacific  states  and  territories,  which 

"Smith,  R.  M.,  op.  cit.,  pp.  242-3. 


2^2  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


are  suffering  under  a  terrible  scourge,  but  are  patientlj 
waiting  for  relief  from  Congress." 

Besides  prohibiting  the  importation  of  women,  egpeciallj 
Chinese,  for  the  purpose  of  prostitution,  and  the  immigra- 
tion of  convicts,  the  principal  provision  of  the  Act  of  March 
3,  1875,  was  that  the  transporting  into  the  United  States 
of  residents  of  China,  Japan  or  any  Oriental  country 
without  their  free  and  voluntary  consent,  for  the  purpose 
of  holding  them  to  a  term  of  service,  was  to  be  punished 
by  imprisonment  for  not  more  than  one  year  and  by  a  fine 
not  exceeding  $2,000.  It  further  provided  that  any  person 
attempting  to  contract  in  this  manner  to  supply  coolie  labor 
to  another  should  be  guilty  of  a  felony  and  imprisoned 
for  not  more  than  one  year  and  pay  a  fine  of  not  more 
than  $5,000. 

Owing  to  the  excitement  caused  by  the  dispute  over  the 
presidential  election  of  1876,  no  action  was  taken  on  the 
report  of  the  committee  until  1879  when  Congress  passed 
what  was  practically  a  Chinese  exclusion  act,  which  under- « 
took  to  abrogate  the  obnoxious  sections  of  the  Burlingame 
treaty  of  1868.  The  bill,  passed  by  the  House  by  an  over- 
whelming vote  and  by  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  39  against 
27,  was  vetoed  by  President  Hayes,  who  gave  as  one  reason 
his  contention  that  Congress  had  no  right  to  abrogate  a 
treaty.  However,  he  hastened  to  comply  with  the  wish  of 
the  representatives  of  the  people  that  the  treaty  of  1868 
should  be  modified,  and  a  commission  was  sent  in  1880  to 
China  for  that  purpose. 

On  October  1,  1880  the  American  commissioners,  Messrs., 
Angell,  Swift,  and  Trescot,  laid  before  the  Chinese  com- 
missioners, Messrs.  Pao  Chiin  and  Li  Hung  Tsao,  who 
proved  to  be  shrewd  negotiators,  a  memorandum  exhibit-' 
ing  the  difficulty  and  dangers  attending  the  free  immigra- 
tion of  Chinese  laborers  into  the  United  States,  and  the 
desire  of  the  United  States  to  revise  the  treaty  stipulations! 
between  the  two  countries  on  the  subject.  i 

The  Chinese  commissioners,  in  a  memorandum  of 
October  7,  1880,  intimated  that  they  were  ready  to  enter  i 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION 


293 


fupon  negotiations  to  prohibit  the  emigration  of  the  four 
classes — coolie  laborers,  criminals,  prostitutes,  and  diseased 
ipersons.    They  also  pointed  out  that  there  was  no  com- 
pulsory emigration  from  China  to  the  United  States;  that 
'China  rejoiced  in  the  freedom  which  her  subjects  enjoyed  in 
[America;  they  also  quoted  a  declaration  of  Senator  Morton, 
ithat  the  constitution  declared  that  all  peoples  might  come 
ito  the  United  States  without  let  or  hindrance,  and  they 
declared  that  the  Chinese  in  America  had  added  greatly  to 
the  wealth  of  this  country.    The  American  commissioners 
I  intimated  rather  sharply,  due  to  this  unexpected  attitude 
"of  the  Chinese  negotiators,  that  this  proposal  was  insuffi- 
icient  and  asked  that  the  Chinese  Government  consent  to 
such  a  modification  of  the  free  immigration  clauses  of  the 
Burlingame  treaty  as  would  avoid  the  raising  of  questions 
that  might  disturb  the  friendly  relations  of  the  two  coun- 
tries. To  this  end  the  American  commissioners  submitted  a 
,  project  of  a  treaty  which  stated  that  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  should  have  the  right  to  regulate,  limit, 
suspend,  or  prohibit  the  coming  of  Chinese  laborers,  by 
which  term  was  to  be  understood  all  immigration  other 
( than  that  for  teaching,  trade,  travel,  study,  and  curiosity. 
(/  The  Chinese  commissioners  agreed  to  the  limitation  of 
'i  immigration,  but  not  to  the  prohibition,  and  they  sought  to 
confine  the  limitation  to  California.    The  American  com- 
1  missioners  finally  agreed  to  omit  the  word  "prohibit"  and 
I  use  the  words  ''regulate,  limit,  or  suspend,"  but  they  de- 
clined to  subject  to  conditions  the  right  thus  secured.  They 
1  also  declined  to  admit  the  exception  of  "artisans"  from  the 
i  class  of  Chinese  laborers.   The  terms  of  the  treaty,  which 
^are  still  in  force,  were  agreed  to  on  November  6,  1880. 
I     Article  I  stated:  "Whenever  in  the  opinion  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States,  the  coming  of  Chinese  labor- 
'  ers  to  the  United  States,  or  their  residence  therein,  affects 
■  or  threatens  to  affect  the  interests  of  that  country,  or  to 
I  endanger  the  good  order  of  the  said  country  or  of  any 
locality  within  the  territory  thereof,  the  Government  of 
China  agrees  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States 


294 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


may  regulate,  limit,  or  suspend  such  coming  or  residence  j 
but  may  not  absolutely  prohibit  it.   The  limitation  or  sus- . 
pension  shall  be  reasonable  and  shall  apply  only  to  Chinese  | 
who  may  go  to  the  United  States  as  laborers,  other  classes 
not  being  included  in  the  limitations.   Legislation  taken  in 
regard  to  Chinese  laborers  will  be  of  such  a  character  only 
as  is  necessary  to  enforce  the  regulation,  limitation  or  sus- 
pension of  immigration,  and  immigrants  shall  not  be  sub-i 
ject  to  personal  maltreatment  or  abuse." 

After  the  treaty  of  1880  was  concluded,  a  bill  to  execute* 
certain  stipulations  contained  therein  was  passed  by  the* 
House  and  Senate.  However,  on  April  4,  1882,  President: 
Arthur  returned  the  bill  with  his  veto,  his  principal  reason 
for  refusing  to  sign  it  being  that  the  passage  of  an  act  pro- , 
hibiting  immigration  for  twenty  years  was  an-4inreasonable  j 
suspension  of  immigration  and,  consequently,  a  breach  of 
the  treaty.  j 

Subsequently,  a  modified  bill  was  passed  by  Congress,! 
and,  although  containing  some  of  the  provisions  objection-i 
able  to  the  President,  he  approved  it  on  May  6,  1882. 
/  Thjs  act  suspended  (sec.  1)  for  ten  years  the  coming  of 
<  Chinese  laborers  to  the  United  States,  provided  for  the 
deportation  of  any  who  should  come  in  violation  of  the 
prohibition,  and  imposed  (sec.  2)  on  the  master  of  any 
vessel  who  should  '^knowingly  bring  within  the  United 
States  on  such  vessel,  and  land  or  permit  to  be  landed,  any 
Chinese  laborer,  from  any  foreign  port  or  place,"  a  fine  of 
not  more  than  $500  for  each  such  laborer,  to  which  might 
also  be  added  a  year's  imprisonment.  These  sections,  how- 
ever, did  not  apply  (sec.  2)  to  Chinese  laborers  in  the 
United  States  on  Nov.  17,  1880,  or  who  should  have  come 
within  ninety  days  after  the  passage  of  the  act;  but  such 
laborers,  in  order  to  establish  their  right  to  go  and  come, 
were  required  (sec.  4),  on  departing  from  the  United  States, 
to  obtain  from  the  collector  of  customs  certificates  of 
identity  entitling  them  to  return. 

It  was  further  provided  (sec.  6)  that  Chinese  persons, 
other  than  laborers,  who  might  be  entitled  to  enter  the 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION 


^95 


fUnited  States,  should  be  so  identified  ''by  certificate  issued 
under  the  authority  of"  the  Chinese  Government;  and  the 
[forgery  of  such  a  certificate  was  made  a  misdemeanor,  pun- 
'ishable  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  $1,000  and  imprisonment 
(not  exceeding  a  year. 

Masters  of  vessels  were  required  (sec.  8)  to  furnish  lists 
of  Chinese  passengers;  and  any  vessel  whose  master  know- 
ingly violated  any  provision  of  the  act  was  subject  to 
forfeiture  (sec.  10).  Bringing  in  by  land  was  also  made 
(sec.  11)  a  misdemeanor,  punishable  with  fine  and 
imprisonment. 

Any  Chinese  person  who,  on  hearing  before  a  "justice, 
judge,  or  commissioner  of  a  court  of  the  United  States", 
was  found  to  be  unlawfully  in  the  United  States,  was  to 
be  deported. 

The  credentials  of  "diplomatic  and  other  officers"  of  the 
Chinese  Government  were  made  equivalent  to  the  certifi- 
(cate  required  in  other  exempt  classes  (sec.  13). 

•  It  was  forbidden  to  admit  Chinese  to  citizenship  (sec.  14). 
Finally,  the  words  "Chinese  laborers"  were  defined  as  in- 
cluding "both  skilled  and  unskilled  laborers  and  Chinese 
employed  in  mining." 

The  next  legislation  on  the  subject  was  the  act  of  July  5, 
1884,^  one  provision  of  which  amended  section  1  of  the 
Act  of  1882  so  as  to  make  it  unlawful  for  any  Chinese  labor- 

[  ers  to  come  to  the  United  States  "from  any  foreign  port 

!  or  place." 

'  Section  4  was  amended  so  as  to  provide  (1)  that  the 
'  certificate  of  identity  of  a  laborer,  instead  of  being  "prima 
:  facie"  evidence,  should  be  "the  only  evidence  permissible 
;<  to  establish  his  right  of  reentry";  (2)  that  every  Chinese 

•  person  of  the  exempt  classes  claiming  a  right  to  enter  should 
"obtain  the  permission  of  and  be  identified  as  so  entitled 
by  the  Chinese  Government,  or  of  such  other  foreign  gov- 
ernment of  which  at  the  time  such  Chinese  person  shall  be 
a  subject",  and  that  the  certificate  thus  required  should  be 
visaed  by  the  American  diplomatic  representative  "in  the 

'22  Stat.  58.  "23  Stat.  115. 


296  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


foreign  country  from  which  such  certificate  issues",  or  b 
the  American  consular  representative  at  the  port  or  plac 
of  departure;  and,  while  it  was  made  prima  facie  evidenc 
of  the  facts  stated  in  it,  it  was  declared  to  be  ''the  sole! 
evidence  permissible"  of  the  individual's  exempt  character 
It  was  expressly  declared  that  the  provisions  of  the  act 
should  ''apply  to  all  subjects  of  China  and  Chinese,  whether 
subjects  of  China  or  any  other  foreign  power." 

This  act  of  May  6,  1882,  as  amended  by  the  act  of  July  5, 
1884  was  continued  in  force  for  ten  years  by  the  act  of 
May  5,  1892.^  and  was  further  continued  in  force  by  the 
V.  act  of  May  5,  1902. 

The  act  of  1884  was  carried  out  with  extreme  harshness 
and  gave  rise  to  a  number  of  cases  of  individual  hardship. 
However,  relief  was  given  in  several  such  cases,  one  being 
as  follows:  a  Chinese  laborer  who  was  here  in  1880  but 
departed  before  the  act  of  1882  requiring  a  certificate  had 
been  passed,  was  refused  admission  on  his  return  on  the 
ground  that  he  had  no  certificate,  which  by  the  act  of  1884, 
was  made  an  indispensable  condition  of  re-admission.  The 
Supreme  Court  held  that  the  act  of  Congress  should  not 
be  interpreted  as  demanding  a  condition  impossible  of  ful- 
fillment, and  that,  although  Congress  has  the  power  to, 
abrogate  treaties  by  legislative  action,  yet  such  power  will 
not  be  deemed  to  have  been  exercised  if  any  other  interpre- 
tation of  the  statute  is  possible. 

Opposition  to  the  Chinese  in  this  country  continued,  so 
that,  in  1886,  the  Chinese  Government  announced  to  the 
United  States  minister  at  Pekin  that  China  of  her  own 
accord  proposed  to  establish  a  system  of  strict  and  abso- 
'  lute  prohibition,  under  heavy  penalties,  of  her  laborers 
coming  to  the  United  States,  and  likewise  to  prohibit  the 
return  to  the  United  States  of  any  laborer  who  had  at  any 
time  gone  back  to  China  "in  order  that  Chinese  laborers 
may  gradually  be  reduced  in  numbers  and  causes  of  dangers 
averted  and  lives  preserved."  We  were  only  too  glad  tc 
enter  into  such  arrangements  and  after  some  negotiations 

*27  Stat.  25.  '"Chew  Heong  v.  U.  S.,  112  U.  S.  536. 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION 


297 


fa,  treaty  was  concluded  by  Secretary  Bayard  and  the 
Chinese  minister  under  date  of  March  12,  1888.  By  this 
arrangement  the  United  States  secured  the  cooperation  of 
China  in  the  main  purpose  and  object  of  the  treaty,  which 
is  stated  in  the  first  article  to  be  the  absolute  prohibition 
of  Chinese  laborers  from  coming  into  the  United  States  for 
twenty  years,  and  unless  notice  should  be  given  by  either 
Government  six  months  before  the  expiration  of  the  period 
it  should  remain  in  force  for  another  like  period  of  twenty 
years.  To  this  prohibition  the  only  exception  made  was 
a  Chinese  laborer  who  had  a  lawful  wife,  child,  or  par- 
ent in  the  United  States,  or  property  therein  of  the 
value  of  one  thousand  dollars,  or  debts  of  like  amount  due 
him  and  pending  settlement.  Mr.  Bayard  says,  in  making 
his  report  of  the  negotiations  to  the  President,  that  ^con- 
siderations of  humanity  and  justice  require  these  exceptions 
to  be  made,  for  no  law  should  overlook  the  ties  of  family, 
and  the  wages  of  labor  are  entitled  to  just  protection.^ 

'The  treaty  did  not  affect  the  right  at  present  enjoyed  of 
Chinese  subjects  being  officials,  teachers,  students,  mer- 
chants, or  travelers  for  curiosity  or  pleasure,  but  stipulated 

[that  in  order  to  entitle  them  to  admission  they  must  pro-  ^ 
duce  a  certificate  from  their  Government  or  from  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  country  where  they  last  resided,  viseed  by 
the  diplomatic  or  consular  representative  of  the  United 
States  in  the  country  .or  port  whence  they  departed." 

I    The  treaty  seemed  drastic  enough,  but  in  order  to  be 

I  perfectly  sure,  the  Senate  added  two  amendments  by  which 
the  prohibition  was  expressly  extended  ''to  the  return  of 

!  Chinese  laborers  who  are  not  now  in  the  United  States, 
whether  holding  certificates  under  existing  laws  or  not", 
and  the  production  of  a  certificate  was  made  absolutely 
necessary  for  re-admission.  Such  action  as  this  is  not  un- 
common for  the  Senate  now,  but  it  did  seem  a  little  too 
anxious  in  this  case  to  prevent  the  return  of  those  who 
we  had  previously  said  might  return.  The  Chinese  min- 
ister received  the  additional  amendments  with  the  remark 

"Moore's  Digest,  Vol.  IV,  p.  193. 


298  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


that  they  did  not  materially  alter  the  treaty.  It  was  then 
sent  to  China  for  ratificaion  in  May,  1888. 

The  government  of  the  United  States  confidently  ex- 
pected that  China  would  ratify  the  treaty.  However,  in 
China  there  was  delay.  It  seemed  that  China  desired  to 
lessen  the  term  of  twenty  years,  and  to  gain  for  Chinese 
laborers  having  property  less  than  $1,000  in  value  the  right 
to  return.  Congress  grew  impatient  and  passed  the  Act  of 
Sept.  13,  1888,  which  provided  for  the  carrying  into  effect 
of  the  treaty  signed  in  Washington,  March  12,  1888.^^  Since 
the  treaty  was  not  ratified,  much  controversy  arose  as  to 
whether  the  law  could  be  enforced.  Section  13  of  the  act 
was  held  to  be  effective,  although  the  treaty  was  not  rati- 
fied.^^  In  United  States  v.  Chong  Sam,^^  the  fifth  section 
and  succeeding  sections  were  held  to  be  in  force,  though 
the  treaty  was  not  ratified.  Contra,  however,  were  U.  S.  v. 
Gee  Lee,i^  U.  S.  v.  Loo  Way,i«  and  Li  Sing  v.  U.  S.^^  In 
U.  S.  V.  Tuck  Lee  it  was  held  that  Chinese  laborers 
who  depart  from  the  United  States  have  the  right  to  return 
only  on  compliance  with  sections  5,  6,  and  7  of  the  act  of 
Sept.  13,  1888,  continued  in  force  by  subsequent  statutes. 
On  July  7,  1899,  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  held  that  sec- 
tions 5-14  inclusive  became  immediately  operative  on  the 
passage  of  the  act,  while  these  sections  were  declared  to  be 
continued  in  force  by  the  act  of  April  29,  1902. 

No  ratification  of  the  treaty  followed,  however,  and  on 
receipt  of  unofficial  reports  that  China  had  rejected  it.  Con- 
gress passed  a  bill  prohibiting  the  coming  to  the  United 
States  of  Chinese  laborers.  President  Cleveland  withheld 
his  approval  of  the  bill  for  some  time,  but  finally,  on  the 
refusal  of  China  to  ratify  the  treaty  unless  the  term  of  years 
was  made  shorter  and  other  conditions  were  changed,  on 
October  1,  1888,  he  signed  it. 

By  this  act  of  Oct.  1,  1888,  it  was  made  unlawful  for  any 

"^25  Stat.  476,  or  Moore's  Digest,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  194-7. 
"U.  S.  V.  Jim,  47  Fed.  Rep.  431;  In  re  Mah  Wong  Gee,  id.,  433;  U.  S. 
V.  Gee  Lee,  50  Fed.  Rep.  271.  i 
"47  Fed.  Rep.  878.        ^^"50  Fed.  Rep.  271.         ^"68  Fed.  Rep.  475. 
"180  U.  S.  486,  488-490  (1901).  "120  Fed.  Rep.  989  (1903).  i 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION 


299 


Chinese  laborers  ''who  shall  at  any  time  heretofore  have 
been,  or  who  may  now  or  hereafter  be,  a  resident  within  the 
United  States,  and  who  shall  have  departed,  or  shall  depart, 
therefrom,  and  shall  not  have  returned  before  the  passage 
of  this  act,  to  return  to,  or  remain  in,  the  United  States:" 
and  all  certificates  of  identity  under  sections  4  and  5  of  the 
I  act  of  1882  were  declared  to  be  void,  and  the  issuance  of 
I  such  certificates  in  the  future  was  forbidden. 
j     The  Chinese  government  protested  against  this  legisla- 
j  tion,^^  but  its  validity  was  upheld  in  the  Chinese  Exclusion 
f  Case.^^   The  President,  in  his  annual  message,  Dec.  3,  1888 
^  stated : 

'[     'Tn  a  message  accompanying  my  approval,  on  the  first 
I  day  of  October  last,  of  a  bill  for  the  exclusion  of  Chinese 
laborers,  I  laid  before  Congress  full  information  and  all  cor- 
respondence touching  the  negotiation  of  the  treaty  with 
!  China,  concluded  at  this  Capitol  on  the  12th  day  of  March 
I  1888,  and  which,  having  been  confirmed  by  the  Senate  with 
!  certain  amendments,  was  rejected  by  the  Chinese  Govern- 
I  ment.    This  message  contained  a  recommendation  that  a 
I  sum  of  money  be  appropriated  as  compensation  to  Chinese 
I  subjects  who  had  suffered  injuries  at  the  hands  of  lawless 
j  men  within  our  jurisdiction.    Such  appropriation  having 
j  been  duly  made,  the  fund  awaits  reception  by  the  Chinese 
Government. 

I     "It  is  sincerely  hoped  that  by  the  cessation  of  the  influx 
i  of  this  class  of  Chinese  subjects,  in  accordance  with  the  ex- 
I  pressed  wish  of  both  Governments,  a  cause  of  unkind  feel- 
ing has  been  permanently  removed." 

By  the  act  of  May  5,  1892,^2  the  legislation  of  1882  being 
;  about  to  expire,  all  laws  in  force  in  relation  to  the  exclusion 
of  Chinese  were  continued  in  force  for  another  ten  years. 
Among  other  additional  provisions.  Senator  Dolph  of  Ore- 

I"25  Stat.  504. 
"For.  Rel.  1889,  115-150;  For.  Rel.  1890,  177,  206.  210-219,  228-230. 
"^Chae  Chan  Ping  v.  United  States,  130  U.  S.  581.    See  also  Nishimura 
Ekiu  V.  U.  S.,  142  U.  S.  651 ;  Fong  Yiie  Ting  v.  United  States,  149  U.  S- 
,   698;  Lee  Moon  Sing  v.  U.  S.,  158  U.  S.  538. 
I     "27  Stat.  25. 


300  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


gon  secured  one  which  provided  that  all  Chinese  laborers 
within  the  United  States  were  required  to  secure  certificates 
within  one  year,  and  if  anyone  was  found  without  such  cer- 
tificate he  was  to  be  liable  to  deportation  (sec.  6).^^ 

A  number  of  interesting  cases  came  up  under  this  law. 
It  was  held  that  a  commissioner  has  jurisdiction  to  make 
an  order  of  deportation  under  sec.  6.^"^  So,  also,  a  justice  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia.^^  Where 
Chinese  persons  unlawfully  came  into  the  United  States 
from  British  Columbia,  it  was  held  that  they  should  under 
the  act  of  May  5,  1892,  be  deported  to  China,  there  being 
no  evidence  that  they  were  ^^citizens  or  subjects"  of  British 
Columbia  and  neither  of  them  claiming  to  be  such,  al- 
though there  was  proof  that  one  of  them  had  lived  there 
three  years  and  the  other  a  year  and  a  half.^^  It  was  held 
that  deportation  under  the  act  is  not  punishment  for  crime, 
in  the  sense  of  the  Constitution,^"^  and  that  the  order  of 
deportation  need  not  explicitly  refer  to  the  act  under  which 
the  person  ordered  to  be  deported  is  adjudged  to  be  unlaw- 
fully in  the  United  States.^^  Other  important  decisions 
held  that  the  throwing  upon  the  accused  Chinese  person  of 
the  burden  of  proof,  is  constitutional.^^  However,  the  bur- 
den of  proving  that  the  person  arrested  is  a  Chinese  person 
rests  on  the  United  States.^^  In  a  number  of  cases  it  was 
held  that  the  power  of  Congress  to  expel,  like  the  power  to 
exclude,  aliens,  or  any  specified  class  of  aliens,  from  the 
country,  may  be  exercised  entirely  through  executive  ofii- 
cers;  or  Congress  may  call  in  the  aid  of  the  judiciary  to 

"  For  Chinese  protest  against,  and  correspondence  concerning,  the  act  of 
May  5,  1892,  see  For.  Rel.  1892,  106,  118,  119,  123,  126,  134-38,  145,  147-55,  | 
158. 

^In  re  Tsu  Tse  Mee,  81  Fed.  Rep.  562;  In  re.  Wong  Fock,  81  Fed. 
Rep.  558. 

^  Chan  Gun  v.  U.  S.,  9  App.  D.  C.  290. 

"U.  S.  V.  Lee  Kee  (1902),  116  Fed.  Rep.  612. 

"U.  S.  V.  Wong  Dep  Ken,  57  Fed.  Rep.  206;  In  re.  Tsu  Tse  Mee,  Srf 
Fed.  Rep.  562.  , 
**In  re  Tsu  Tse  Mee,  81  Fed.  Rep.  562. 

^U.  S.  V.  Wong  Dep  Ken,  57  Fed.  Rep.  206;  U.  S.  v.  Williams,  83  Fedj 
Rep.  997;  In  re  Li  Sing,  86  id.  896;  Li  Sing  v.  U.  S.  (1901),  180  U.  S.  486; 
U.  S.  V.  Sing  Lee  (1903),  125  Fed.  Rep.  627. 
U.  S.  V.  Hung  Chang,  126  Fed.  Rep.  400. 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION 


301 


ascertain  any  contested  facts  on  which  an  alien's  right  to 
remain  in  the  country  has  been  made  by  Congress  to  de- 
fend. In  the  same  cases  it  was  held  that  Congress  has  the 
right  to  provide  a  system  of  registration  and  identification 
Df  any  class  of  aliens  within  the  country,  and  to  take  all 
proper  means  to  carry  out  that  system.^ ^  From  these  and 
bther  decisions  it  is  evident  that  the  exclusion  laws  were 
Kipheld  in  virtually  every  respect. 

By  the  act  of  November  3,  1893,  the  time  within  which 
Chinese  laborers  in  the  United  States  were  permitted  to 
register  was  fixed  at  six  months  from  that  date;  for  the 
phrase  ''at  least  one  credible  white  witness,"  in  sec.  6  of 
the  act  of  1892,  there  was  substituted  ''at  least  one  credible 
^vitness  other  than  Chinese;"  there  was  excluded  from  regis- 
tration any  Chinese  person  who  had  been  convicted  in  the 
United  States  of  felony;  and  the  certificate  of  residence  was 
required  to  contain  the  applicant's  photograph. 

In.  his  annual  message  of  December  4,  1893,  President 
Cleveland  stated: 

;  "The  legislation  of  last  year  requiring  the  registration  of 
^11  Chinese  laborers  entitled  to  residence  in  the  United 
States,  and  the  deportation  of  all  not  complying  with  the 
provisions  of  the  act  within  the  time  prescribed,  met  with 
•hiuch  opposition  from  Chinamen  in  this  country.  Acting 
upon  the  advice  of  eminent  counsel  that  the  law  was  un- 
j  constitutional,  the  great  mass  of  Chinese  laborers,  pending 
judicial  inquiry  as  to  its  validity,  in  good  faith  declined  to 
apply  for  the  certificates  required  by  its  provisions.  A  test 
Jpase  upon  proceedings  by  habeas  corpus  was  brought  before 
the  Supreme  Court,  and  on  May  15,  1893,  a  decision  was 
piade  by  that  tribunal  sustaining  the  law. 
[  "It  is  believed  that  under  the  recent  amendment  of  the  act 
'extending  the  time  for  registration,  the  Chinese  laborers 
thereto  entitled,  who  desire  to  reside  in  this  country,  will 
Qow  avail  themselves  of  the  renewed  privilege  thus  afforded 

'  "Fong  Yiie  Ting  v.  U.  S.  (1893),  149  U.  S.  698.  See  also  Lem  Moon 
Sing  V.  U.  S,  158  U.  S.  538;  Li  Sing  v.  U.  S.,  180  U.  S.  486;  Fok  Yung  Yo 
y.  XJ.  S.  (1902),  185  U.  S.  296,  302. 


302  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


of  establishing  by  lawful  procedure  their  right  to  remaii , 
and  that  thereby  the  necessity  of  enforced  deportation  man 
to  a  great  degree  be  avoided." 

I  have  discussed  this  at  length  here  in  order  to  preserf 
clearly  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  require  aliens  ti 
register.  In  view  of  the  present  agitation  for  the  registrgj 
tion  of  all  aliens  in  this  country,  it  has  a  renewed  and  addej 
significance. 

China  soon  asked  for  the  opening  of  negotiations  lookini 
to  a  new  treaty.  These  negotiations  were  successful.  Th 
treaty  was  signed  at  Washington,  March  17,  1894  and  pro 
claimed  on  December  8,  1894.  It  was  agreed  (art.  I)  thai 
for  a  period  of  ten  years,  from  the  date  of  the  exchange  ci 
ratifications,  the  coming  of  Chinese  laborers  to  the  Unite 
States,  except  under  the  conditions  specified  in  the  treatjl 
should  be  "absolutely  prohibited."  Those  going  back  t 
China  were  allowed  to  return  here,  providing  they  had 
wife,  child,  or  parent,  or  property  worth  $1,000  somewhen 
in  the  United  States.  Registration  was  still  required.  I 
practically  covered  the  same  grounds  as  existing  legislatioii 
except  that  the  act  of  October  1,  1888,  refusing  to  Chinesij 
laborers  the  right  to  return,  was  repealed.  On  January  24 
1904,  the  Chinese  Government  gave  notice  of  the  terming 
tion  of  the  treaty  on  December  7,  1904.  ' 

By  the  act  of  August  18,  1894,  ''in  every  case  where 
alien  is  excluded  from  admission  into  the  United  State! 
under  any  law  or  treaty  now  existing  or  hereafter  made,  thi 
decision  of  the  appropriate  immigration  or  customs  officersj 
if  adverse  to  the  admission  of  such  alien,  shall  be  fina 
unless  reversed  on  appeal  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Trea^ 
ury."  Under  this  same  act  the  courts  can  not  review  aj 
order  of  deportation  from  which  no  appeal  has  been  taker; 

By  the  Act  of  June  6,  1900,  the  administration  of  th 
Chinese  exclusion  laws  was  committed  to  the  Commis 

^^28  Stat.  390.  In  Quon  Quon  Poy  v.  Johnson,  Feb.  21,  1927,  Sup.  Coui 
of  U.  S.,  No.  68,  the  Supreme  Court  held  that  the  hearing  accorded 
Ch'nese  boy,  seeking  admission  to  the  U.  S.  under  the  claim  of  America 
c'tizenship,  was  fair  and  the  departmental  findings  conclusive.  See  als 
Re  Simone  case,  supra,  p.  97,  and  Ju  Toy  case,  supra,  p.  102,  and  case 
cited  on  p.  140,  in  note  14. 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION 


303 


iioner-General  of  Immigration,  under  the  supervision  and 
iirection  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.^^  However,  by 
he  act  of  February  14,  1903,  the  authority  possessed  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  relation  to  the  exclusion  of 
[Chinese  was  transferred  to  the  Secretary  of  Commerce  and 
i.jabor,3*       later  to  the  Secretary  of  Labor.^^ 

After  the  annexation  of  Hawaii,  on  July  7,  1898,  Chinese 
mmigration  to  these  islands  was  declared  to  be  regulated 
)y  the  laws  of  the  United  States.   By  the  act  of  April  30, 

1900,  provision  was  made  for  the  registering  of  all  the 
IJhinese  in  these  islands,  and  Chinese  living  there  were  for- 
bidden to  enter  continental  United  States.^^ 

As  the  time  came  for  the  lapse  of  the  period  of  exclusion 
provided  by  the  Act  of  1892,  interest  in  the  exclusion  laws 
igain  became  intense,  especially  on  the  Pacific  coast.  A 
Chinese  minister,  in  a  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  De- 
;ember  10,  1901,  brought  the  matter  to  the  attention  of  the 
[Jnited  States,  ^'urging  an  adjustment  of  the  questions  in- 
volved more  in  harmony  with  the  friendly  relations  of  the 
two  governments."   In  his  annual  message  of  December  3, 

1901,  President  Roosevelt  stated:  "1  regard  it  as  neces- 
sary to  reenact  immediately  the  law  excluding  Chinese 
laborers,  and  to  strengthen  it  wherever  necessary  in  order 
io  make  its  enforcement  entirely  effective."  A  bill  was 
introduced  in  the  Senate  on  January  16,  1902  by  Senator 
Mitchell,  of  Oregon,  and  a  similar  bill  was  introduced  in 
:he  House  by  the  late  Mr.  Kahn,  of  California.  In  the 
Senate  the  Mitchell  and  Kahn  bills  were  considered  too 
;evere,  and  before  passing  that  body  they  were  amended  by 
providing  that  all  existing  laws  be  reenact ed,  and  continue 
in  force  until  a  new  treaty  should  be  negotiated.  Congress 
idopted  the  bill  April  28,  1902  and  the  President  approved 
t  the  following  day.^"^   By  section  1  of  this  act  of  April  29, 

1902,  all  laws  relating  to  the  exclusion  of  Chinese  and  their 
•esidence  in  the  United  States,  including  sections  5,  6,  7,  8, 

"31  Stat.  588.  611.  '^32  Stat.  825,  826-829. 

"37  Stat.  736  (Act  of  March  4,  1913). 
"30  Stat.  750,  751  and  31  Stat.  141,  161. 
^  "32  Stat.  176. 


304  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


9,  10,  11,  13,  and  14  of  the  act  of  Sept.  13,  1888,  were,  s( 
far  as  not  inconsistent  with  treaty  obligations  continued  ir 
force,  and  were  made  applicable  to  the  island  territory  o; 
the  United  States,  so  as  to  prohibit  the  immigration  o] 
Chinese  laborers,  not  citizens  of  the  United  States,  froir 
such  territory  to  the  mainland  territory,  or  from  one  part  tc  . 
another  of  the  island  territory,  except  in  the  same  group 
and  the  islands  within  the  jurisdiction  of  any  State  or  Dis-fl 
trict  of  Alaska  are  considered  as  part  of  the  mainland. 

Section  4  required  all  Chinese  laborers,  other  than  citi- 
zens, in  the  insular  territory  of  the  United  States,  excepi 
Hawaii,  to  obtain  within  a  year  certificates  of  residence  ir 
such  territory,  on  pain  of  deportation;  but  the  Philippine 
Commission  was  authorized  to  extend  the  time  in  those 
islands. 

Upon  the  refusal  of  China  to  continue  the  treaty  of  189-: 
after  1904,  Congress,  by  the  act  of  April  27,  1904,^' 
amended  section  1  of  the  foregoing  act  by  omitting  the  ref 
erence  to  treaty  obligations.  Thus  Congress  reenacted,  eX' 
tended  and  continued,  all  laws  then  in  force  in  so  far  as  they 
were  not  inconsistent  with  treaty  obligations,  so  that  ab- 
solute prohibition  of  Chinese  laborers  has  continued  to  this 
day,  for  this  exclusion  law  of  1904  is  still  in  force. 

Such  then  has  been  the  history  of  our  dealings  with  Chinaj 
concerning  the  immigration  of  Chinese  laborers  into  this  ^ 
country.    Perhaps  it  is  not  a  record  about  which  we  can 
boast,  yet  it  accomplished  the  desired  end, — the  effective 
exclusion  of  Chinese  laborers.^^    The  arguments  and  pro-  J 
tests  of  Japan  against  the  provisions  in  the  Act  of  1924  j 
which  in  effect  excluded  Japanese  laborers  from  the  United  J 
States  become  rather  feeble  and  groundless  when  one  con-j 
siders  the  rather  extreme  measures  we  have  taken  against 
Chinese  immigration.  At  any  rate,  from  our  brief  review  ofi 
our  policy  toward  China,  it  would  seem  that  neither  Chinai 
nor  Japan  can  hold  out  much  hope  for  a  change  in  the  pres-^j 

^33  Stat.  I,  428. 

®  How  cffoctivoly  this  is  boinR  done  is  ovidont  from  the  table  on  page  305 
taken  from  the  report  of  the  Commissioner-General  for  the  fiscal  yean 
1924,  page  156. 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION 


305 


Summary  op  Chinese  Seekinc.  Admission  to  ttir  United  States, 
June  30,  1919,  to  1924,  mv  Classes 


Fiscal  Years  Ended 


Class  alleged 


United  States  citizens 

Wives  of  United 
States  citizens  .  .  . 

iReturning  laborers.  . 

Returning  merchants 

-Oilier  merchants.  .  .  . 

M  embers  of  mer- 
chants' families  .  . 

Siudcnts   

i"ra\'elers   

i'lacliers   

Ortieials   

Miscellaneous   

(li  anted  o  r  denied 
the  privilege  of 
transit  in  bond 
across  land  terri- 
tory of  the  United 
States   

Total  


1919 

1920 

1921 

.  r3 

-a 

'a 

OJ 

pea 

itte 

D 
ti 

itte 

O) 

<u 
A 

'S 
c 

'V 

as 

eS 

O 

S 
'a 

CS 

O) 

T3 

S 

ca 

0) 

0) 

a 

V 

< 

Q 

Q 

H 

Q 

Q 

< 

Q 

5 

W 

955 

29 

1 

1 

1,761 

27 

2 

3,239 

47 

4 

1 

91 

5 

141 

1 

290 

1 

418 

2 

320 

2 

568 

0 

i' 

r)i2 

28 

525 

21 

702 

4 

138 

25 

105 

287 

4 

305 

47 

644 

47 

1,316 

38 

3 

443 

1 

512 

2 

838 

4 

48 

1 

131 

110 

IG 

28 

i 

33 

134 

'  2 

146 

2 

223 

"  i 

280 

11 

377 

22 

717 

192 

i' 

21 

10,917 

43 

17,907 

108 

8,381 

172 

1 

1 

15,607 

168 

2 

26,230'  404 
1 

10 

3 

Class  alleged 


^United  States  citi- 
zens   

iWives  of  United 
States  citizens.  . 

Returning  laborers 

Returning  mer 
chants   

Other   merchants.  ; 


of  mer- 
families. 


Members 
chants' 
^ students   

Travelers   

Teachers   

'Officials   

Miscellaneous  .... 

Granted  or  denied 
the  privilege  of| 
transit  in  bond 
across  land  ter- 
ritory of  the 
United  States  .  . 


1922 


Total  17,264 


396 
1,467 

764 
649 

1,360 
682 
112 
26 
287 
238 


7,239 


89 
604 


1923 


4,690 

387 
1,453 

980 
497 

1,377 

576 
116 
28 
172 
282 


6,017 


19  16,575  770 


155 


64 


C  > 


33 


33 


4,754 

396 
1,340 

1,229 
452 

1,096 
642 
105 
39 
149 
492 


8.573 


19,267  1,051 


306  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


ent  laws  that  will  permit  even  a  limited  admission  of  thei  'i 
laborers  into  this  country.  :jr 

Due  to  the  objections  of  the  Japanese  Government 
other  proposed  methods  of  excluding  Asiatics  from  thij 
United  States,  the  so-called  latitude  and  longitude  plan  wa:  ji^ 
worked  out  and  included  in  the  Immigration  Law  of  19171' 
This  clause  awkwardly,  but  nevertheless,  effectively,  closec* 
the  door  against  virtually  all  Asiatic  immigration  not  al 
ready  barred  by  the  Chinese  Exclusion  Law  and  Treat}, 
and  the  ''Gentlemen's  Agreement"  with  Japan,  the  lattei; 
of  which,  however,  has  been  abrogated  by  the  Act  of  1924i 
In  fact,  the  Act  of  1917  provided  for  the  exclusion  of  the 
Japanese  under  this  clause  in  the  event  that  the  ''Gentle-ij 
men's  Agreement"  should  become  inoperative.*^  \ 

As  we  have  noted  in  a  previous  chapter  the  clause  re-^ 
ferred  to  denies  admission  into  the  United  States  to  thei 
following  classes  of  aliens:  ! 

''Unless  otherwise  provided  for  by  existing  treaties,  per-' 
sons  who  are  natives  of  islands  not  possessed  by  the  United] 
States  adjacent  to  the  Continent  of  Asia,  situate  south  of 
the  twentieth  parallel  of  latitude  north,  west  of  the  one 
hundred  and  sixtieth  meridian  of  longitude  east  from 
Greenwich,  and  north  of  the  tenth  parallel  of  latitude 
south,  or  who  are  natives  of  any  country,  province,  or  de- 
pendency situate  on  the  Continent  of  Asia  west  of  the  one 
hundred  and  tenth  meridian  of  longitude  east  from  Green- 
wich and  east  of  the  fiftieth  meridian  of  longitude  east  from 
Greenwich  and  south  of  the  fiftieth  parallel'  of  latitude 
north,  except  that  portion  of  said  territory  situate  between 
the  fiftieth  and  the  sixty-fourth  meridians  of  longitude  east 
from  Greenwich  and  the  twenty-fourth  and  thirty-eighth 
parallels  of  latitude  north,  and  no  alien  now  in  any  way  ex- 
cluded from,  or  prevented  from  entering,  the  United  States 

■"The  following  inconspicuous  sentence  which  appears  in  this  clause, 
would  seem  to  be  a  method  of  excluding  by  United  States  law  all  those 
classes  of  Japanese  who  were  at  the  time  being  excluded  under  the 
Gentlemen's  Agreement:  "No  alien  now  in  any  way  excluded  from,  or 
prevented  from  entering,  the  United  States  shall  be  admitted  to  the 
United  States  " 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION 


307 


all  be  admitted  to  the  United  States."    The  rest  of  the 
lause  deals  with  the  exemption  of  certain  persons  because 
of  status  or  occupation,  from  this  provision  of  the  law. 

Briefly  stated  the  restricted  area  described  in  the  pro- 
'  vision  quoted  included  India,  Siam,  Indo-China,  Afghani- 
stan, parts  of  Russian  Turkestan,  and  Arabia  on  the  con- 
tinent of  Asia,  and  New  Guinea,  Borneo,  Sumatra,  and  Java 
as  well  as  many  lesser  islands.  The  Phihppines  and  Guam, 
iand  a  large  part  of  China,  are  also  within  the  described 
area,  but  of  course  the  islands  named  are  ^'possessed  by  the 
United  States"  and  accordingly  are  not  affected,  while  the 
I  Chinese  are  barred  under  the  exclusion  law  as  noted  above. 
Japan  and  her  possessions  were  entirely  omitted  from  the 
restricted  area,  and  they  were  thus  favored  until  the  Act 
of  1924  went  into  effect  on  July  1,  1924. 

The  immediate  practical  effect  of  this  latitude  and  longi- 
tude clause  has  been  to  check  the  coming  of  the  east  In- 
^dians  or  Hindus  to  the  Pacific  coast.  In  the  opinion  of  the 
Commissioner  of  the  State  Bureau  on  Labor  Statistics  in 
California,  ''The  Hindu  is  the  most  undesirable  immigrant 
in  the  State."  While  the  immigration  from  India  was  never 
large,  yet  there  was  always  a  fear  that  many  might  desire 
to  come.  Canada  adopted  a  drastic  policy  of  exclusion 
against  them  in  order  to  prevent  what  promised  to  become 
a  veritable  deluge  of  Hindu  immigration  into  British  Col- 
umbia. Except  for  a  very  inhospitable  attitude  the  United 
States  had  no  effective  legal  means  of  dealing  with  the  mat- 
ter until  this  geographical  or  barred  zone  test  was  enacted. 
This  provision,  however,  has  effectively  solved  the  problem 
of  immigration  from  India  and  the  other  countries  included 
in  the  barred  zone,  since  it  absolutely  prohibits  it,  with  the 
exception  of  the  exempt  classes. 


CHAPTER  X 


Japanese  Immigration  ^  i 

Analysis  of  the  Japanese  population  in  the  United  States — ^Japanese  and 
Chinese  immigration  compared — Japanese  in  Hawaii — Causes  and  results 
of  Japanese  emigration — The  development  of  anti-Japanese  agitation  in 
the  United  States — California's  position — Act  of  1907 — The  Gentlemen's 
Agreement — Treaties  of  1894  and  1911 — Criticisms  of  the  Agreement — 
House  Report  350 — History  of  the  Japanese  Exclusion  law  of  1924 — Effect 
of  the  Hanihara  letter — The  bill  in  conference — The  fear  of  a  treaty — 
Passage — Japan's  protest — Analysis  of  the  law — Japanese  opinion — Ameri- 
can opinion — Japanese  fear  of  and  protest  against  discriminatory  legisla- 
tion— Views  of  American  officials — Conclusions. 

From  the  time  that  Commodore  M.  C.  Perry  in  1853 
virtually  forced  Japan  to  open  her  doors  and  to  sign  com- 
mercial treaties  with  the  United  States,  Great  Britain  and 
Russia,  Japanese  gradually  sifted  into  the  outside  world. 
However,  it  was  not  until  the  year  1885  that  the  Japanese 
government  authorized  its  subjects  to  go  abroad,  but  with 
the  stipulation  that  the  emigrant  should  never  lose  his  alle- 
giance to  the  Mikado.  It  was  not  until  1916  that  Japan 
enacted  an  Expatriation  law,  providing  that  a  Japanese 
acquiring  another  nationality  may  lose  Japanese  nation- 
ality by  petitioning  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  under 
the  condition,  however,  that  he  must  first  perform  his  mili- 
tary service,  if  above  seventeen  years  of  age. 

The  increase  of  the  Japanese  population  in  the  United 
States  has  been  as  follows:- 

^  Extensive  use  has  been  made  of  the  following  two  pamphlets  in  writ- 
ing this  chapter: 

(a)  "Japanese  Immigration,"  by  R.  L.  Buell,  World  Peace  Foundation 
Paini)hlot,  Vol.  VH,  Nos.  5-6,  and  (b)  ''An  Analysis  of  the  American 
Immigration  Act  of  1924,"  by  J.  B.  Trevor,  International  Conciliation 
Pamphlet  No.  202,  September,  1924. 

^14th  Annual  Census  of  the  UD  ted  States,  Vol.  II,  p.  29. 

308 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION 


309 


Japanese  Chinese ' 

1870    55   

1880    148  105,465 

1890    2,039  107,488 

1900    24,326  89,863 

1910    72,157  71,531 

1920    111,010  61,639 

This  111,010  was  composed  of  the  following: 

Native  born    29,672 

Foreign  born    81,338 

Naturalized    572 

First  papers    270 

Thus,  about  27.2%  of  the  Japanese  population  of  the  con- 
tinental United  States  was  born  in  this  country,  and  is  com- 
posed, therefore,  of  American  citizens.^ 

An  examination  of  the  figures  given  above  for  Japanese 
and  Chinese  immigration  into  the  United  States  would  seem 
to  make  it  clear  that  since  the  enactment  of  the  Chinese 
Exclusion  Act,  approved  May  6,  1882,  there  has  been  not 
only  a  steady,  but  a  very  heavy  fall  in  the  number  of  Chin- 
ese enumerated  within  the  borders  of  the  United  States. 
On  the  other  hand,  under  an  arrangement  designed  to  ac- 
complish in  respect  to  the  Japanese,  a  similar  result,  the 
latter  element  has  increased.  During  only  ten  years  of  the 
period  in  which  the  Gentlemen's  Agreement  was  in  force, 
in  the  decade  1910-1920,  we  find  a  very  heavy  increase  in 
the  Japanese  population,  viz.,  approximately  54%.  While 
it  is  true  that  the  expansion  of  the  Japanese  population 
during  these  ten  years  amounting  in  all  to  38,853,  includes 
increase  by  birth,  the  census  enumeration  of  the  foreign 
born  during  that  period  discloses  an  addition  to  our  popula- 
tion of  13,758  by  immigration;  viz.,  the  difference  between 
a  foreign  Japanese  population  of  67,744  in  1910  and  81,502 
in  1920.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Japanese  Ambassador, 
quoting  from  the  reports  of  the  United  States  Commis- 
sioner of  Immigration,  asserted  in  his  note  to  the  Secretary 
of  State,  dated  April  10,  1924,  that  ^^in  the  years  1908-1923, 
the  total  number  of  Japanese  admitted  to  and  departed 
from  the  continental  United  States  were,  respectively,  120,- 

*  Inserted  here  in  order  to  compare  them. 

*  14th  Annual  Census  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  II,  p.  804. 


310  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


317  and  111,636.  In  other  words,  the  excess  of  those  admit- 
ted over  those  departed  was  in  15  years  only  8,681." 
Against  these  figures,  however,  must  be  placed  the  follow- 
ing table  taken  from  the  Annual  Report  of  the  Commis- 
sioner-General of  Immigration,  1923:^ 


Fiscal  year  Japanese  Japanese 
(ended  June  30)                          immigrant  aliens   emigrant  aliens ' 

1912    6,172  1,501 

1913    8,302  733 

1914    8,941  794 

1915    8,609  825 

1916    8,711  780 

1917    8,925  722 

1918    10,168  1,558 

1919    10,056  2,127 

1920    9,279  4,238 

1921    7,531  4,352 

1922    6,361  4,353 

1923    5,652  2,844 


The  situation  which  has  developed  in  Hawaii  as  a  result 
of  Oriental  immigration  would  seem  to  be  fraught  with 
political,  economic,  and  social  problems  of  great  complexity. 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  in  1920  out  of  a  population  amounting 
to  255,912  persons,  109,274  were  Japanese,  of  whom  60,888 
were  foreign  born. 

In  Hawaii  the  situation  is  as  follows : 

Population.' 

1920 

Total   255,912 

Japanese    109,274 

Japanese  percentage  of  total   42.7 

''Page  30. 

"These  figures  for  Japanese  immigrant  and  emigrant  aliens  differ  from 
the  figures  cited  in  the  annual  reports  of  the  Commissioner-General  in 
the  table,  "Increase  or  decrease  of  Japanese  population  by  alien  admis- 
sions and  departures."  Thus,  under  the  latter  head,  for  1922  the  ad- 
missions to  Continental  United  States  were  8,981,  the  departures  were 
11,173,  a  decrease  of  2,192.  For  1923  the  admissions  were  8,055,  the 
departures  8,393,  a  decrease  of  338.  For  1924  the  figures  were  11,526  and 
9,248  respectively,  an  increase  of  2,278.  For  1925  the  figures  were  re- 
spectively 3,222  and  7,265,  a  decrease  of  4,043,  while  for  1926  the  admis- 
sions were  4,652  and  the  departures  7,751,  a  decrease  of  3,099.  Since  the 
figures  given  in  the  table  for  the  years  1912  to  1924  are  limited  to  "Japa- 
nese immigrant  and  emigrant  aliens"  they  are  naturally  not  as  general 
as  "ahen  admissions  and  departures."  Obviously  this  explains  the  appa- 
rent contradictions  involved.  See  Annual  Reports  of  the  Commissioner- 
General  of  Immigration  for  the  years  referred  to. 

'14th  Annual  Census  of  the  United  States,  1920,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  1172. 


1910  1900 

191,909  154,001 

79,675  61,111 

41.5  39.7 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION 


311 


Between  1900  and  1910  the  Japanese  population  in- 
creased 1.8%  in  relation  to  the  total  population,  and  be- 
tween 1900  and  1910  it  increased  1.2%.  Since  1920  the 
I  Japanese  proportion  has  slightly  declined.  In  1921  it  was 
I  41.6%  of  the  total;  1922,  41.1%;  and  in  1923,  40.4%.8  The. 

I!  Japanese  men  in  Hawaii  are  married  in  a  higher  ratio  than  | 
are  the  men  of  any  other  racial  group. ^   But  the  Japanese ! 
birth  rate  is  lower  than  the  birth  rate  of  all  other  racial 
groups,   except   the   American   and   North  European. 
According  to  the  report  of  the  Commissioner-General  for 
1924  there  were  3,516  Japanese  admitted  and  2,779  de- 
parted from  Hawaii  in  1923.   In  1924  the  figures  were  re- 
spectively 4,172  and  2,495  or  a  gain  of  1,677.^1    In  1925 
there  was  a  decrease  of  1,038,  the  admissions  being  965  and 
the  departures  being  2,003.^^    For  1926  the  figures  were 
1,126  and  2,640  respectively,  a  decrease  of  1,514.^^ 

Japan's  emigration  problem  has  been  aggravated  by  the 
size  of  her  population.  Japan  is  inhabited  by  about  56,000,- 
000,  while  her  territory  is  only  about  the  size  of  the  state 

rof  California.  History  would  seem  to  indicate  that  emigra- 
tion will  not  solve  the  over-population  problem,  and  this 
view  has  apparently  been  accepted  by  some  Japanese 
statesmen  who  are  looking,  rather,  to  the  industrialization 
I  of  Japan. 1*  At  any  rate,  such  a  step  has  been  forced  on  her 
since  she  finds  the  door  closed  to  her  emigrants  in  Australia, 
j  New  Zealand,  Canada  and  the  United  States. 

In  so  far  as  the  United  States  is  concerned,  the  situation 

:  'Adams,  R.,  "The  Japanese  in  Hawaii,"  Foreign  Affairs,  December  15, 
i  1923 ;  and  published  separately  in  enlarged  form  by  the  American-Japanese 
Relations  Committee,  p.  7. 

'14th  Annual  Census  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  1183.  Cf.  Labor 
Problems  in  Hawaii,  H.  Rept.  1717,  2  pts.,  67th  Congress,  4th  session,  Feb- 
ruary 26-27,  1923. 

Cf.  Survey  of  Education  in  Hawaii,  Department  of  the  Interior,  Bu- 
reau of  Education,  Bulletin  No.  16,  1920,  p.  15. 

"Page  148,  Annual  Report  of  Commissioner-General  of  Immigration, 
.1924. 

"Page  178,  Annual  Report  of  Commissioner-General  of  Immigration, 
1925. 

"  Page  158,  Annual  Report  of  Commissioner-General  of  Immigration, 
1926. 

"  See  article  by  Marquis  Kin-ichi  Komura,  "Japan's  Safety  Valves," 
in  Liberty  Magazine,  Januaiy  22,  1927,  p.  33. 


312 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


is  complicated  by  some  considerations  of  a  political  nature^ 
which  must  be  considered  owing  to  the  fact  that  they  havej 
distinct  bearing  upon  certain  provisions  of  the  Act  of  1924.i 
For  example — The  Gentlemen's  Agreement  was  an  under- 
standing between  the  Government  of  the  United  States  and 
that  of  Japan,  by  which  the  latter  voluntarily  undertook  to 
adopt  and  enforce  administrative  methods  designed  to- 
check  immigration  to  the  United  States  from  Japan.  Yet, 
it  was  only  after  prolonged  negotiation  and  continued  pres- 
sure that  the  Japanese  government  since  March  1,  1920, 
has  discontinued  the  issuance  of  passports  to  the  so-called 
picture 'brides.   Now,  a  picture  bride  has  been  regarded  by 
the  people  on  the  Pacific  coast  as  not  merely  a  prospective « 
wife  and  potential  mother  of  large  families  of  Japanese! 
children,  but  also  she  has  been  in  fact  a  field  laborer.  Ob-| 
viously,  therefore,  the  entry  of  an  indefinite  number  ofji 
picture  brides  tended  to  render  null  and  void  the  effect' 
which  was  unquestionably  intended  on  the  part  of  theil 
United  States,  in  entering  upon  the  Gentlemen's  Agree-; 
ment,  even  if  in  fact,  there  was  no  technical  violation  of 
the  understanding.    Unfortunately  so  far  as  reaching  anj 
ultimate  solution  of  the  immigration  problem  was  con- 
cerned, the  Japanese  Government  introduced  the  system  of 
Kankodan  brides;  that  is  to  say — "In  order  to  assist  the 
Japanese  laborers  and  colonists  in  this  country  to  get  a 
Kankodan  bride  instead  of  a  picture  bride,  the  Japanese 
Government  officially  made  this  change  in  the  law,  that 
where  visitors  from  California  and  the  coast  going  back  to 
Japan  had  only  30  days  in  which  to  stay  there,  unless  they  ^ 
were  prepared  to  do  their  conscription  duty,  that  period] 
was  extended  to  90  days  in  the  event  that  they  came  fori 
the  purpose  of  getting  a  bride,  and  financial  interests  so 
arranged  matters  that  the  laborer  desiring  a  bride  could 
enter  into  a  Kankodan  party  and  secure  his  bride  from  ^ 
Japan  at  a  cost  which  was  not  much,  if  any,  in  excess  of  the 
price  which  would  have  been  paid  by  him  under  the  picturetj 
bride  system."  J 

"  Hf';irin{rs  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  Immigration,  68th  Con-j 
gress,  First  Session  on  S.  2576,  p.  27.    Testimony  of  Mr.  McClatchy 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION 


313 


Furthermore,  there  is  the  question  of  dual  allegiance. 
"There  have  been/'  said  Mr.  McClatchy,  ''in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  90,000  Japanese  born  under  the  American  flag  in 
continental  United  States  and  in  Hawaii.  Three  years  ago 
I  had  an  official  report  from,  I  think  it  was,  the  department 
of  Justice  in  Tokyo,  and  there  was  exactly  64  of  that  entire 
number  who  had  been  permitted  to  expatriate  under  the 
laws  of  Japan.  They  were  claiming  and  exercising  the 
rights  of  American  citizenship,^^  and  all  but  64  of  those 
94,000  were  tied  to  Japan  and  compelled  to  do  her  will  in 
peace  and  in  war."^"^ 

Finally,  a  curious  situation  resulted  from  the  fact  that 
"Section  3  of  the  immigration  law  of  1917,  describing  and 
defining  the  barred  zone,  specifically  provides  that  the  ex- 
empts'of  that  zone  must,  while  in  the  United  States,  main- 
tain their  status,  and  that  their  wives  and  minor  children 
must  similarly  maintain  while  in  the  United  States  a  status 
placing  them  within  the  excepted  classes,  and  that  failure 
to  maintain  such  a  status  shall  subject  them  to  deportation. 
In  the  case  of  the  Chinese  exclusion  law  and  the  Japanese 
Gentlemen's  Agreement  that  requirement  does  not  appear, 
although  it  would  seem  that  the  clear  intent  of  Congress 
was  that  the  exempts  of  these  countries  and  races  shall 
maintain  their  exempt  status  and  be  subject  to  deportation 
when  that  status  is  lost.  By  the  decisions  of  the  courts, 
however,  a  different  rule  now  obtains  as  to  the  Chinese  and 
Japanese,  and  as  a  result  great  numbers  are  annually  added 
from  the  representatives  of  these  races  who  enter  as  ex- 
empts to  the  wage-earning  population  of  the  United  States 
by  virtue  of  those  admitted  as  exempts  becoming  wage- 

However,  there  are  other  nations  which  do  likewise. 
"  Hearings  before  the  Committee  on  Immiu;ration,  United  States  Senate, 
Sixty-eighth  Congress,  First  Session  on  S.  2576,  page  7.    Mr.  McClatchy's 
<  testimony  is  substantiated  by  the  following  paragraph  appearing  in  a 
dispatch  to  the  New  York  Times,  dated  Tokyo,  July  8,  1924: 

"The  Japanese  Cabinet  today  approved  an  important  bill  to  permit 
Japanese  citizens  residing  abroad  who  have  not  taken  the  oath  of  alle- 
giance by  serving  the  Japanese  Army  to  relinquish  their  native  citizenship. 
"This  will  allow  the  children  born  of  Japanese  parentage  in  the  United 
f  States  who  have  so  far  had  both  American  and  Japanese  citizenship  to 
discard  the  latter."    {New  York  Times,  July  9,  1924.) 


314 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


earners,  and  their  wives  and  children  similarly  entering  in- 
dustry as  wage  earners."^^ 

The  first  anti-Japanese  agitation  in  the  United  States 
broke  out  in  the  year  1900.  It  was  caused  by  the  increas- 
ing number  of  Japanese  who  entered  the  country.  Begin- 
ning with  1891  over  a  thousand  Japanese  entered  annually, 
subject  only  to  the  restriction  of  the  general  immigration 
laws.  As  a  result  of  this  increase,  meetings  in  San  Francisco 
demanded  the  extension  of  the  Chinese  exclusion  laws  to  the 
Japanese.^^  In  July,  1900,  the  Japanese  Government  de- 
cided to  prohibit  entirely  ''for  the  present,  the  emigration 
from  Japan  to  Canada  and  also  to  the  United  States."  This 
method  did  not  prove  effective,  however,  especially  as  Jap- 
anese continued  to  enter  the  United  States  from  Hawaii. 
In  February,  1905,  a  new  anti-Japanese  campaign  was 
organized  in  San  Francisco,  which  was  led  by  the  Japanese 
and  Korean  Exclusion  League.  Exclusion  bills  were  intro- 
duced into  Congress,  but  they  met  the  opposition  of  Presi- 
dent Roosevelt,  because  of  their  discriminatory  nature.  In 
October,  1906,  the  San  Francisco  School  Board  passed  a 
resolution  ordering  all  Japanese  children  to  attend  the 
Oriental  school  in  Chinatown.  This  led  to  the  vigorous 
protest  of  the  Japanese  government,  and  on  October  23, 
1906,  Secretary  of  State  Root  telegraphed  Ambassador 
Wright,  that  ''the  United  States  will  not  for  the  moment 
entertain  the  idea  of  any  treatment  of  the  Japanese  people 
other  than  that  accorded  to  the  people  of  the  most  friendly 
European  nations."  In  his  message  to  Congress  of  Decem- 
ber 3,  1906,  President  Roosevelt  said,  "To  shut  them  (the 
Japanese)  out  of  the  public  schools  is  a  wicked  absurdity."  j 
He  recommended  the  passage  of  an  act  providing  for  natur-!' 
alization  of  the  Japanese.  The  President  finally  persuaded  I 
the  School  Board  to  rescind  its  resolution  on  the  under-i 
standing  that  the  President  would  bring  Japanese  immigra-  f 
tion  to  an  end.  : 

"  Annual  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  for  the  fiscal  year  ended  | 
Juno  30,  1923,  pa^^e  113. 

"•Buell,  R.  L.,  "The  Development  of  the  Anti-Japanese  A"-itation  in  the  | 
United  States,"  Political  Science  Quarterly,  December,  1922,  and  March 
1923. 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION  315 


It  is  to  be  noted  from  this  that  the  early  opposition  to 
the  Japanese  came  from  California,  and  to  this  day,  Cali- 
fornia has  fought  their  admission,  although  she  has  been 
aided  by  other  Pacific  and  Western  States  in  recent  years. 
California's  opposition  can  be  easily  understood  when  it  is 
recalled  that  about  two-thirds  of  the  Japanese  in  the 
United  States  are  found  in  California.  In  1911  the  excess 
of  Japanese  births  over  deaths  in  California  was  523;  in 
1921  it  was  4,379.  During  1921  and  1922  there  were  540 
births  for  every  100  deaths  among  the  Japanese  in  Cali- 
fornia. For  the  whites  there  were  142  births  for  every  100 
deaths.  The  Japanese  have  a  birth  rate  of  341.2  per  thou- 
sand married  women  of  child-bearing  age  compared  with 
a  rate  of  131.0  for  the  whole  population  and  124.8  for  the 
white  women  in  California,  which  means  that  the  Japanese 
birth  rate  is  about  three  times  that  of  the  white.  About 
43%  of  the  Japanese  mothers  have  more  than  three  chil- 
dren; while  only  about  24%  of  white  mothers  have  families 
larger  than  this.^^  In  1920  about  50%'  or  60%  of  the  Jap- 
anese in  California  were  engaged  in  agriculture.  They  con- 
I trolled  92%  of  the  strawberries;  89%  of  the  celeries;  83% 
of  the  asparagus;  64%'  of  the  cantaloupes;  75%  of  the 
onions;  and  66%  of  the  tomatoes,  which  constituted  about 
13%  of  the  total  value  of  the  annual  agricultural  produc- 
tion of  the  State.  In  1920  the  total  amount  of  land  under 
Japanese  control,  458,056  acres,  constituted  one-half  of  one 
per  cent  of  the  total  land  area  and  1.6%  of  the  farm  land  of 
fthe  State.   The  holdings  were  as  follows: 

I  Owned  by  Japanese  individuals    26,988 

Owned  by  American  corporations  with  Japanese  shareholders   47,781 

1  Cultivated  by  Japanese  under  cash-rent  leases    192,150 

,  Cultivated  by  Japanese  under  crop-share  contract    121,000 

!  Cultivated  by  Japanese  under  labor  contract    70,137 


458,056 


The  following  statements  illustrate  the  general  attitude 
of  Cahfornians  toward  the  Japanese  immigrants  in  that 
state 

Figures  of  the  California  Registrar  of  Vital  Statistics. 


316  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 

In  a  memorial  to  Congress,  the  California  Constitutional 
Convention  in  1879  stated: 

"As  became  a  people  devoted  to  the  National  Union,  and 
filled  with  profound  reverence  for  law,  we  have  repeatedly, 


by  petition  and  memorial,  through  the  action  of  our  Legis- 
lature, and  by  our  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Con- 
gress, sought  the  appropriate  remedies  against  this  greatj| 
wrong,  and  patiently  awaited  with  confidence  the  action  of 
the  General  Government.    Meanwhile  this  giant  evil  has 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION 


317 


frrown,  and  strengthened,  and  expanded;  its  baneful  effects 
upon  the  material  interests  of  the  people,  upon  public  mor- 
als, and  our  civilization,  becoming  more  and  more  apparent, 
until  patience  is  almost  exhausted,  and  the  spirit  of  dis- 
content pervades  the  state.  It  would  be  disingenuous  in 
us  to  attempt  to  conceal  our  amazement  at  the  long  delay 
bf  appropriate  action  by  the  National  Government  towards 
ithe  prohibition  of  an  immigration  which  is  rapidly  ap- 
fproaching  the  character  of  an  Oriental  invasion,  and  which 
threatens  to  supplant  the  Anglo-Saxon  civilization  on  this 
Coast." 

In  an  article,  ^The  Japanese  Invasion,"  Mr.  John  S. 
Chambers,  Controller  of  the  State  of  California  stated:-^ 

"There  is  no  need  of  excitement  over  Japanese  threats. 
It  is  natural  that  they  should  feel  as  their  talk  indicates, 
ito  say  nothing  of  the  obvious  purpose  to  influence  opinion, 
land,  if  possible,  to  strike  a  bargain.  California  has  won, 
and  she  feels  happy  and  secure  in  the  victory,  limited 
though  it  is. 

i  "There  has  been  more  or  less  talk  of  superiority  and  in- 
^feriority  as  between  the  races,  but  not  a  great  deal.  The 

f  issue  is  a  fundamental  difference,  an  unbridgeable  differ- 
ence; not  one  of  superiority  or  inferiority.  Granting  equal- 
ity, the  standards  of  the  races  are  almost  as  opposite  as  the 
poles,  and  there  is  no  possibility  of  a  common  trend  ever 
being  evolved.  Assimilation  is  impossible.  .  .  .  Their  ra- 
,cial  instinct  is  very  decidedly  developed.  The  two  peoples 
run  along  different  lines  physically,  morally,  socially,  eco- 

,  nomically,  and  politically.  As  they  differ  in  color,  so  do 
they  in  traditions,  habits,  and  aspirations.  Obviously, 
therefore,  it  is  unwise  for  the  two  races  to  meet  in  numbers. 
If  they  should  the  clash  is  inevitable.  The  situation  in 
California  is  bad  enough  now;  it  must  not  be  permitted  to 
^become  worse.  .  .  . 

"I  wish  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  we  of  California  are 
not  acting  in  a  spirit  of  hatred,  vindictiveness  or  retaliation. 
We  are  actuated  by  the  instinct  of  self-preservation.  We 

I   *  The  Annals,  January,  1921. 


318  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


see  the  danger  that  threatens  not  only  California  and  th  i 
Pacific  Coast,  but  which  may  involve  our  country  as  , 
whole.  For  Japan  and  Japanese  on  their  proper  side  of  th  i 
Pacific  we  have  only  good  wishes;  on  this  side,  we  canno; 
feel  so  because  we  know  that  what  they  would  considej 
their  good  would  mean  our  undoing." 

In  an  article  by  V.  S.  McClatchy,  publisher  of  the  Saci 
ramento  Bee,  he  declared:-- 

'There  are  three  principal  elements  in  the  menace  threat  , 
ened  by  Japanese  immigration  to  this  country.  The;  \ 
are:  , 

"1.  The  non-assimilability  of  the  Japanese  race;  th 
practical  impossibility  of  making  out  of  such  material  valu 
able  and  loyal  American  citizens.  i 

''2.  Their  unusually  large  birth  rate  per  thousand  popu, 
lation,  already  shown  in  California  to  be  three  times  that  Cj, 
the  whites,  notwithstanding  that  the  estimated  proportioi 
of  adult  females  to  males  among  the  Japanese  is  only  1  tl 
4,  while  among  the  whites  it  is,  say,  1  to  1. 

''3.  The  great  advantages  which  they  possess  in  economiij 
competition,  partly  due  to  racial  characteristics,  and  partlji 
to  standards  of  living,  organization,  direction  and  aid  froni 
their  government.  These  advantages  make  it  hopeless  ioi 
American  whites  to  compete  with  them. 

"It  should  be  evident  that  we  cannot  encourage  or  permi 
in  our  midst  the  development  of  an  alien  element  possess! 
ing  these  characteristics  without  inviting  certain  disastel 
to  our  institutions  and  to  the  nation  itself.  The  evidence  0]i| 
each  of  these  points  is  apparently  incontrovertible. 

"As  to  non-assimilability,  the  first  element  mentioned  iiii 
the  Japanese  menace,  there  are  three  main  reasons  why  ij 
is  useless  to  attempt  the  making  of  good  American  citizen! 
out  of  Japanese  material,  save  of  course  in  exceptional  in 
dividual  instances.  The  Japanese  cannot,  may  not  and  wi] 
not  provide  desirable  material  for  our  citizenship.  .  i 

"1.  The  Japanese  cannot  assimilate  and  make  good  citi 

'^"Japanese  in  the  Melting  Pot:  Can  They  Assimilate  and  Make  Ooo 
Citizens?"  in  The  Annals,  January,  1921. 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION 


319 


izens  because  of  their  racial  characteristics,  heredity  and  re- 
lligion. 

^'2.  The  Japanese  may  not  assimilate  and  make  good  citi- 
(zens  because  their  Government  claims  all  Japanese,  no 
matter  where  born,  as  its  citizens. 

'  ''3.  The  Japanese  will  not  assimilate  and  make  good  citi- 
zens. In  the  mass,  with  opportunity  offered,  and  even 
when  born  here,  they  have  shown  no  disposition  to  do  so, 
ibut,  on  the  contrary,  pronounced  antagonism." 

In  an  article,  ''California — White  or  Yellow?'^  Marshall 
De  Motte,  Chairman  of  the  State  Board  of  Control  of  Cali- 
fornia, stated:-^  'The  question  of  the  mixture  of  Orientals, 
particularly  Japanese,  with  whites,  while  it  has  its  economic 
side,  is  nevertheless  a  race  problem  in  the  last  analysis.  Not 
!of  an  inferior  race  seeking  to  mix  with  a  superior  race,  for 
at  no  time  have  we  cast  reflection  on  the  Chinese  as  to  their 
dependability,  honesty,  and  shrewdness  in  business  nor  on 
!the  Japanese  as  to  their  thrift,  industry  and  finesse  in 
diplomacy.  We  respect  both  of  these  members  of  the  Mon- 
[golian  race  but  the  fact  cannot  be  dodged  that  they  either 
(must  not  come  or  if  permitted  to  come  must  not  be  allowed 
ito  gain  a  foothold  that  will  eventually  enable  them  to  con- 
1;rol  a  single  state  of  the  nation  as  they  virtually  control 
OEawaii  today." 

Senator  James  D.  Phelan  of  California  would  seem  to 
have  summed  up  the  situation  in  his  state  in  the  following 
brief  article,  which  I  quote  here  in  full: 
S    ^'The  solution  of  the  Japanese  problem,  growing  out  of 

I  the  California  situation,  requires  prompt  action  by  Con- 
fess.  It  is  charged  with  danger.   The  people  of  Japan,  as 

I  well  as  the  people  of  the  eastern  States,  should  be  informed 

I  in  a  spirit  of  frankness.  There  should  be  no  misunderstand- 
ing, because  misunderstandings  breed  trouble. 

"Great  numbers  of  Japanese,  men  and  women,  are  in  Cali- 
fornia, and  are  acquiring  large  tracts  of  agricultural  land. 
!The  state  law^  forbade  ownership  by  aliens  ineligible  to  citi- 
zenship, but  the  Japanese  took  deeds  in  the  name  of  their 

i  "The  Annals,  January,  1921.  ^ Ihid, 


320  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


children  born  on  the  soil  or  in  the  names  of  the  coi-porations  i 
and  so  circumvented  the  intent  of  the  law.   The  initiative ! 
law  adopted  at  the  recent  November  elections  will,  it  is  | 
hoped,  prevent  this  circumvention,  thus  making  further 
land  acquisition  impossible.   The  Japanese  also  lease  lands 
and  work  for  a  share  of  the  crop,  and  when  thus  working 
for  themselves  are  impossible  competitors,  and  drive  thei 
white  settlers,  whose  standards  of  living  are  different,  from^ 
their  farms.    The  white  farmer  is  not  free  from  cupidity 
when  tempted  by  Japanese  to  sell  out  at  high  prices,  and 
they  do  sell  out  and  disappear.    The  state,  therefore,  is' 
obliged  as  a  simple  matter  of  self-preservation  to  prevent' 
the  Japanese  from  absorbing  the  soil,  because  the  future  ofl 
the  white  race,  American  institutions,  and  western  civiliza- 
tion are  put  in  peril.   The  Japanese  do  not  assimilate  with 
our  people  and  make  a  homogeneous  population,  and  hence  | 
they  cannot  be  naturalized  and  admitted  to  citizenship.! 
Therefore,  the  question  is  principally  economic  and  partly! 
racial.    Japan  itself  excluded  Chinese  in  order  to  preserve| 
her  own  people,^^  and  that  is  what  California,  Australia,-^:' 
and  Canada  are  doing.    Japanese  statesmen  must  surely,  ; 
for  these  reasons,  acquit  Americans  of  race  prejudice.  Wei 
are  willing  to  receive  diplomats,  scholars  and  travelers  from ; 
Japan  on  terms  of  equality,  but  we  do  not  want  her  labor- 
ers.  We  admire  their  industry  and  cleverness,  but  for  that' 
very  reason,  being  a  masterful  people,  they  are  more  dan-i 
gerous.   They  are  not  content  to  work  for  wages,  as  do  the' 
Chinese,  who  are  excluded,  but  are  always  seeking  control,' 
of  the  farm  and  of  the  crop.  j 
'immigration  and  naturalization  are  domestic  questions,  1 
and  no  people  can  come  to  the  United  States  except' 
upon  our  own  terms.    We  must  preserve  the  soil  for  the! 
Caucasian  race.    California,  by  acting  in  time,  before  thej 
evil  becomes  even  greater,  expects  to  prevent  conflict! 

^  Note  by  tho  author — See  Japanese  Imperial  Ordinance  No.  352  of : 
1899.    Also  footnote  on  pp.  109-10  of  A.  M.  Poolcy's  "Japan's  Foreign 

^  Note  by  the  author— See  Williard,  "White  Australian  Policy,"  Ch.  II 
and  Ch.  VL 


I  JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION  321 

and  to  maintain  good  relations  with  the  Japanese  Govern- 
ment. 

'"The  American  Government  rests  upon  the  free  choice  of 
the  people,  and  a  large  majority  of  the  people  are  engaged 
I  in  farming  pursuits.    They  form  the  backbone  of  every 
country — the  repository  of  morals,  patriotism  and  thrift, 
and  in  the  time  of  their  country's  danger  spring  to  its  de- 
;  fense.   They  represent  its  prosperity  in  peace  and  its  secur- 
lity  in  war.    The  soil  cannot  be  taken  from  them.  Their 
'standards  of  living  cannot  suffer  from  deterioration.  Their 
(presence  is  essential  to  the  life  of  the  state,   I  therefore  urge 
I  the  Japanese  Government  and  people  to  put  themselves  in 
our  place  and  to  acquit  us  of  any  other  purpose  in  the  ex- 
clusion of  oriental  immigration  than  the  preservation  of  our 
(national  life  and  the  happiness  and  prosperity  of  the  men 
^and  women  who  founded  the  Republic,  and  who  have  de- 
veloped its  resources,  and  who  occupy  the  land.   It  is  theirs 
in  trust  for  their  posterity. 

'The  people  of  Asia  have  a  destiny  of  their  own.  We  shall 
aid  them  by  instruction  and  example,  but  we  cannot  suffer 
:  them  to  overwhelm  the  civilization  which  has  been  estab- 
lished by  pioneers  and  patriots  and  which  we  are  dutifully 
bound  to  preserve." 

In  the  immigration  act  of  February  20,  1907,  the  Presi- 
dent was  authorized  to  refuse  entrance  to  immigrants  who, 
t  to  obtain  entrance  to  the  mainland,  were  using  passports 
originally  issued  to  ''any  country  other  than  the  United 
States."-^    Under  this  authority,  the  President  issued  the 
*  proclamation  of  March  14,  1907,  which  ordered  that  "Jap- 
anese or  Korean  laborers,  skilled  or  unskilled,  who  have  re- 
j  ceived  passports  to  go  to  Mexico,  Canada  or  Hawaii  and 
\  come  therefrom,  be  refused  permission  to  enter  the  conti- 
i  nental  territory  of  the  United  States."-^  This  proclamation 
I  was  revised  on  February  24,  1913,  so  as  not  to  use  the 
words  "Japanese  or  Korean"  but  to  bar  all  "such  alien 

"  Repeated  in  Sec.  3  of  the  act  of  February  4,  1917. 
^Department  Circular  No.  147,  March  26,  1907;  and  Rule  21,  Immi- 
;  gration  Regulations  of  July  1,  1907. 


322  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


laborers."-^  This  method  stopped  Japanese  immigration 
from  Hawaii  and  Mexico,  but  not  directly  from  Japan.  Thcs 
act  of  1907  also  authorized  the  President  to  enter  into  ''sucfc' 
international  agreements  as  may  be  proper  to  prevent  tht 
immigration  of  aliens  who,  under  the  laws  of  the  Unitec 
States  are  or  may  be  excluded  from  entering  the  Unitec 
States,  and  of  regulating  any  matters  pertaining  to  such 
immigration."^^ 

Under  the  vague  authority  of  this  act,  President  Roose- 
velt entered  into  the  so-called  Gentlemen's  Agreement  oi\ 
1907-08.    By  this  agreement  the  Japanese  might  continual 
to  issue  passports  to  nonlaborers.    But  it  promised  not  tc' 
issue  passports  to  laborers  skilled  or  unskilled  wishing  to  gc 
to  the  continental  United  States  with  the  exception  of  twc' 
main  classes:  (1)  those  who  return  to  resume  a  formerly' 
acquired  domicile;  (2)  parents,  wives  and  children,  under 
twenty  years  of  age,  of  laborers  in  the  United  States.  The' 
Japanese  Government  accepted  the  definition  of  ''laborer' 
as  given  in  the  United  States  Executive  order  of  April  8 
1907.    Although  the  agreement  was  not  applicable  tc* 
Hawaii,  Japan  applied  practically  the  same  restrictive' 
measures  to  immigration  with  that  destination.   The  Jap-^ 
anese  Government  similarly  limited  immigration  to  Mexico  i 

The  Gentlemen's  Agreement  was  not  embodied  in  a' 
treaty  which  was  submitted  to  and  approved  by  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States.  It  was  merely  an  ''executive  agree-' 
ment"  made  by  the  President  in  virtue  of  his  power  to  con-' 
trol  foreign  relations.^ ^  The  Japanese  continued  to  be' 
subject  to  the  restrictions  imposed  on  all  immigrants  by- 
legislation  and  they  were  subject  to  the  literacy  test  enacted 
in  1917. 

The;treaty  of  November  22,  1894,  between  Japan  and  the' 
United  States  provided  that  "The  citizens  or  subjects  ol' 
each  of  the  High  Contracting  Parties  shall  have  full  liberty" 

Rule  11,  Regulations  of  the  Department  of  Labor,  in  effect  Oct.  15 
1915,  p.  153. 
^34  Stat.  898,  Sec.  39. 

"See  Corwin,  E.  S.,  The  President's  Control  of  Foreign  Relations,  pp 
117-125. 


[JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION  323 
to  enter,  travel  or  reside  in  any  part  of  the  territories  of 
the  other  Contracting  Party ,/and  shall  enjoy  full  and  per- 
feet  protection  for  their  pe/sons  and  property."  This  ex- 
II  tremely  wide  provision  was  cut  down  by  a  subsequent 
iitf  (Paragraph  in  Article  2,  )^hich  declared  that  the  above  pro- 
!itf  vision  should  not  ''in  ^ny  way  affect  the  laws,  ordinances 
;!   and  regulations  with  regard  to  trade,  the  immigration  of 

I laborers,  police  an^  public  security  which  are  in  force  or 
which  may  hereafter  be  enacted  in  either  of  the  two  coun- 
tries."^^   This  p/ovision  would  have  permitted  the  United 
States  to  enact  an  exclusion  law  without  violating  the 
treaty. 
This  treaty  of  1894  was  supplanted  by  the  treaty  of  Feb- 
iruary  21,  1911.   At  the  insistence  of  the  Japanese  Govern- 
jment  the  provision  of  the  1894  treaty,  exempting  exclusion 
(laws,  was  omitted.   Article  I  of  the  treaty  was  changed  to 
read  as  follows:   "The  Citizens  or  subjects  of  each  of  the 
IHigh  Contracting  Parties  shall  have  liberty  to  enter,  travel 
and  reside  in  the  territories  of  the  other  to  carry  on  trade, 
wholesale  and  retail,  to  own  or  lease  and  occupy  houses, 
manufactories,  warehouses  and  shops,  to  employ  agents  of 
their  own  choice,  to  lease  land  for  residential  and  commer- 
I'cial  purposes,  and  generally  to  do  anything  incident  to  or 
! necessary  for  trade  upon  the  same  terms  as  native  citizens 
I  or  subjects,  submitting  themselves  to  the  laws  and  regula- 
jtions."^^    Article  I  of  the  treaty  of  1894  appears  to  have 
t  authorized  the  free  admission  of  Japanese  into  this  country 
[regardless  of  purpose,  while  Article  I  of  the  treaty  of  1911 
[appears  to  have  authorized  such  admission  only  for  pur- 
poses of  trade.   In  his  letter  of  February  8,  1924,  Secretary 
iof  State  Hughes  pointed  out  that  pending  immigration 
legislation  appeared  to  exclude  aliens  entitled  to  enter 
under  such  treaties,  and  he  suggested  that  the  legislation 
I  should  not  apply  to  ''an  alien  entitled  to  enter  the  United 
'  States  under  the  provisions  of  a  treaty."   The  House  Com- 
imittee  would  not  go  this  far,  but  did  add  this  additional 

""Malloy,  Treaties  and  Conventions  of  the  United  States,  p.  1028. 
"Treaties  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  2712. 


324  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION  I 

exempted  class:  ''(6)  An  alien  entitled  to  enter  the  United | 
States  solely  to  carry  on  trade  under  and  in  pursuance  oi: 
the  provisions  of  a  present  existing  treaty  of  commerce  and , 
navigation. 

The  treaty  of  1911  between  Japan  and  the  United  States 
was  approved  by  the  Senate  subject  to  this  understanding, 
"That  the  treaty  shall  not  be  deemed  to  repeal  or  affect  anyi; 
of  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of  Congress  entitled  'An  Act  to 
Regulate  the  Immigration  of  Aliens  into  the  United  States,' 
approved  February  20,  1907."  This  understanding  was  ac- 
cepted by  Japan.  The  treaty  was  accompanied  by  the  fol- 
lowing declaration  of  the  Japanese  Ambassador: 

'Tn  proceeding  this  day  to  the  signature  of  the  Treaty  ofl 
Commerce  and  Navigation  between  Japan  and  the  Unitedl 
States  the  undersigned,  Japanese  Ambassador  at  Washing- 
ton, duly  authorized  by  his  Government,  has  the  honor  to 
declare  that  the  Imperial  Japanese  Government  are  fully 
prepared  to  maintain  with  equal  effectiveness  the  limitation . 
and  control  which  they  have  for  the  past  three  years  exer- : 
cised  in  regulation  of  the  emigration  of  laborers  to  the- 
United  States. 

February  21,  1911.^^  Y.  Uchida.'' 

In  the  Immigration  Act  of  February  5,  1917,  the  Gentle- 
men's Agreement  was  indirectly  recognized  as  follows :  "and 
no  alien  now  in  any  way  excluded  from,  or  prevented  from 
entering,  the  United  States  shall  be  admitted  to  the  United 
States."  It  was  again  recognized  in  the  Immigration  Law 
of  May  19,  1921,  which  stated  that  the  provision  in  regard 
to  quotas  should  not  apply  to  "aliens  from  countries  im- 
migration from  which  is  regulated  in  accordance  with 
treaties  or  agreements  relating  solely  to  immigration." 

Government  officials  frequently  declared  that  the  Gentle- 
men's Agreement  was  a  satisfactory  means  of  limiting  im- 
migration. In  1910,  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  in  Hawaii 
said  that  the  agreement  had  effectively  stopped  the  influx 

H.  Report  No.  350,  Committee  on  Immipration  and  Naturalization, 
68th  ConGrross.    1st  session,  March  24.  1P24.  p.  2. 
Treaties  of  the  United  States,  III,  pp.  2717,  2718. 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION 


325 


of  Japanese  plantation  labor  there.^^  In  May,  1916,  Secre- 
tary of  Labor  Wilson  defended  the  agreement  in  a  letter  to 
Senator  Phelan.^'^  In  another  letter  to  the  same  Senator  in 
August,  1919,  Hon.  William  Phillips,  Acting  Secretary  of 
State,  likewise  said  that  the  Agreement  'Vas  working  with 
a  fair  degree  of  satisfaction."^*  The  Agreement  was  de- 
fended by  Secretary  Hughes  in  his  letter  to  the  House  Com- 
mittee, of  February  8,  1924,  and  also  by  Ambassador  Hani- 
hara  in  his  note  of  April  10.  In  1913  President  Roosevelt 
wrote,  ^'The  arrangement  we  made  (the  Gentlemen's 
Agreement)  worked  admirably,  and  entirely  achieved  its 
purpose."^^ 

However,  the  Pacific  coast  was  critical  of  the  Agreement 
from  the  beginning.  In  1909  the  California  legislature 
passed  a  resolution  urging  the  extension  of  the  Chinese  Ex- 
clusion Laws  to  the  Japanese.^^  In  1913  it  passed  a  land 
law  giving  aliens  ineligible  to  citizenship  all  rights  to  real 
property  granted  by  treaty,  but  no  others,  except  the  right 
to  lease  land  for  three  years."*^  According  to  section  2169 
of  the  Revised  Statutes,  which  is  still  in  force,  naturaliza- 
tion is  limited  to  ^'free  white  persons  and  to  aliens  of 
African  nativity  and  to  persons  of  African  descent."  The 
Supreme  Court  has  finally  decided  that  Japanese  are  not 
"free  white  persons"  and  are  not  therefore  eligible  to  citi- 
zenship.^^ (Japanese  born  in  the  United  States  are,  how- 
ever, citizens.)  As  a  result  of  the  California  land  law  of 
1913  Japanese  aliens  could  not  acquire  agricultural  land. 
In  1920  an  initiative  measure  of  even  greater  severity  pro- 
hibited leases  and  all  other  interests  in  real  property.^^  As 
a  result  of  these  measures,  as  interpreted  by  the  Supreme 

^Fourth  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  on  Hawaii,  1910,  Sen. 
Doc.  866,  61st  Congress,  3rd  Session,  Vol.  70,  p.  51. 
"  54  Congressional  Record,  p.  254. 
^Printed,  California  and  the  Oriental,  p.  142. 
^"Roosevelt,  Theodore,  An  Autohiogrophy  (1913),  p.  414. 
'"California  Statutes,  1909,  p  1346. 
*'Ibid.,  1913,  Chap.  113. 

/"Ozawa  V.  United  States,  260  U.  S.  178  (1922).    On  the  question  of 
citizenship  see  Van  Dyne,  Citizenship  of  the  United  States,  and  McGov- 
ney,  "American  Citizenship,"  Columbia  Law  Review,  XI,  231,  326. 
*^  1921  California  Statutes,  pp.  Ixxxvii-xc. 


326  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


Court,  the  Japanese  were  deprived  of  the  use  of  more  than 
300,000  acres  of  land  which  they  had  held  by  forms  other 
than  ownership.  Arizona  passed  a  similar  law  in  February 
1921.^^.  Washington  and  Texas  also  passed  land  laws, 
somewhat  less  discriminatory  than  the  California  and  Ari- 
zona laws.  They  allow  aliens  to  acquire  land  upon  the  same 
basis  as  citizens  if  they  have  legally  declared  their  inten- 
tions to  become  citizens  of  the  United  States.^^  Since  Japan- 
ese are  ineligible  to  citizenship,  they  are  effectually  barred.*^ 
In  1919,  the  California  Senate  again  urged  federal  action 
in  regard  to  Japanese  immigration.^^  On  June  19,  1920, 
the  State  Board  of  Control  made  a  report,  entitled  ''Cali- 
fornia and  the  Oriental,"  which  was  transmitted  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  of  the  United  States  by  Governor  W.  D. 
Stephens. In  this  letter  the  Governor  pointed  out  the 
increase  of  the  Japanese  population  in  California,  which, 
in  his  opinion,  proved  that  the  Gentlemen's  Agreement  had 
not  worked.^^  Particularly  he  criticized  the  entrance  of 
''picture  brides" — Japanese  women  married  by  proxy  in 
Japan  to  Japanese  laborers  in  America,  and  who  were  there- 
upon given  passports  to  the  United  States.  The  Japanese 
Government  voluntarily  stopped  issuing  passports  to  "pic- 
ture brides,"  beginning  March  1,  1920,  although  they  were 
admissible  as  "wives"  under  the  Gentlemen's  Agreement. 

Arizona  Session  Laws,  1921,  Chap.  29,  p.  2. 

Washington  Session  Laws,  1921,  Chap.  50;  cf.  Alien  Land  Laws  and 
Ahen  Rights,  H.  Doc.  89,  67th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  June  2,  1921. 

In  a  series  of  cases  these  alien  land  laws  were  sustained  as  against 
complaints  founded  on  treaties  and  on  the  Fourteenth  Amendment 
Terrace  v.  Thompson  (1923),  263  U.  S.  197;  Porterfield  v.  Webb  (1923) 
263  U.  S.  225;  Webb  v.  O'Brien  (1923),  263  U.  S.  313;  Frick  v.  Webb 
(1923),  263  U.  S.  326.  However,  the  denial  to  an  alien  of  a  license  to  be 
a  pawnbroker  was  held  to  be  forbidden  by  the  federal  treaty  with  Japan. 
Asakura  v.  Seattle  (1924),  265  U.  S.  332.  In  the  state  of  Ohio  ex  rel 
James  Clarke  v.  Auditor  of  the  City  of  Cincinnati;  the  U.  S.  Supreme 
Court  sustained  the  city's  denial  to  an  (English)  alien  of  a  permit  to 
operate  a  pool  room;  the  denial  being  reasonable  under  the  city's  police 
powers.  Many  important  cases  are  cited  by  the  Court.  See  No.  272; 
Sup.  Court  of  U.  S.,  May  16,  1927.    (United  States  Daily,  May  20,  1927.) 

California  Senate  Journal,  1919,  p.  1377. 
**The  accuracy  of  this  report  was  attacked  by  K.  Kanzaki,  Secretary 
of  the  Japanese  Association  of  America,  Hearings,  "Japanese  Immigra- 
tion." Committee  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization,  1921,  pp.  727,  728. 
*^  California  and  the  Oriental,  pp.  7.  14. 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION 


327 


In  his  1920  report  the  Commissioner-General  of  Immi- 
gration declared  that  despite  the  Agreement,  Japanese  sur- 
reptitiously entered  this  country  from  Mexico  and  South 
America.  He  said  that  the  Agreement  needed  to  be  clari- 
fied and  that  it  should  be  jointly  administered  by  the  United 
States  and  Japan  instead  of  by  Japan  alone.^^ 

On  April  27,  1921,  the  California  legislature  passed  a 
resolution  urging  Congress  to  pass  an  exclusion  law.  On 
May  18,  1923,  it  passed  another  resolution  urging  the  ex- 
clusion of  aliens  ineligible  to  citizenship.^^ 

On  March  24,  1924,  the  House  Committee  on  Immigra- 
tion and  Naturalization  made  a  report,  entitled  ^'Restric- 
tion of  Immigration,"  accompanying  H.  R.  7995,  part  of 
which  is  as  follows: 

'The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  decided 
that  certain  nationals  of  oriental  countries  are  not  entitled 
to  be  naturalized  as  citizens  of  the  United  States  under  our 
naturalization  laws.  .  .  .  The  Committee  feels  justified  in 
offering  a  provision  that  persons  ineligible  to  citizenship 
.  shall  not  be  admitted  as  'immigrants'.  All  must  agree  that 
nothing  can  be  gained  by  permitting  to  be  built  up  in  the 
United  States,  colonies  of  those  who  cannot,  under  the  law, 
become  naturalized  citizens,  and  must  therefore  owe 
allegiance  to  another  government. 

"A  majority  of  the  committee  has  been  favorably  dis- 
posed to  such  a  policy  for  two  years,  and  careful  investiga- 
tion has  strengthened  that  sentiment  until  it  has  become 
the  settled  conviction  of  practically  the  entire  committee. 

"Considerable  opposition  has  been  offered  to  this  provi- 
sion by  or  on  behalf  of  Japan,  but  no  other  nation  affected 
thereby  has  offered  protest.  .  .  . 

"As  far  as  concerns  conflict  with  the  Gentlemen's  Agree- 
ment the  committee  is  somewhat  handicapped  in  reaching 
a  conclusion  by  a  lack  of  information  as  to  the  exact  pro- 
visions of  that  agreement.    It  consists  of  correspondence 

^  Annual  Report  of  the  Commissioner-General  of  Immigration,  1920, 
pp.  18,  19.  The  Japanese  Government  declared  its  willingness  to  revise 
the  Agreement. 

"California  Statutes,  1921,  p.  1774. 

"California  Statutes,  1923,  Chap.  60. 


328  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


between  Japan  and  our  Department  of  State  which  has  not 
been  made  public  and  access  to  which  cannot  be  had  by 
this  committee  without  permission  of  Japan,  as  explained 
in  the  letter  of  the  Secretary  of  State. 

'This  much  is  certain,  however,  as  indicated  by  instruc- 
tions to  immigration  officials  at  the  ports  of  entry.  Under 
the  agreement  the  United  States  bound  itself  to  admit  any 
Japanese  who  presents  himself  bearing  Japan's  passport, 
unless  he  be  afflicted  with  contagious  disease,^^  that  is  to 
say,  the  congressional  prerogative  of  regulating  immigration 
from  Japan  has  been  surrendered  to  the  Japanese  Govern- 
ment.^'^ That  condition,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  the 
terms  of  the  agreement  are  secret,  would  justify  immediate 
cancellation  of  the  agreement. 

"It  is  a  curious  fact  that  the  Department  of  Labor,  hav- 
ing charge  of  immigration,  'is  not  in  possession  of  the  Gen- 
tlemen's Agreement  and  never  has  been  supplied  with  the 
same,'  as  stated  in  a  letter  from  the  Labor  Department  of 
February  15,  1924.  ..." 

The  agreement  was  consummated  under  direction  of 
Theodore  Roosevelt  while  President.  He  makes  it  clear, 
through  official  correspondence  (amounting  to  a  compact) 
with  the  Legislature  of  California,  and  by  statements  m 
his  autobiography,  that  the  real  intent  agreed  upon  with 
Japan,  was  to  be  more  restrictive.  Under  this  plan  Japan 
was  to  prevent  the  coming  of  her  people  to  continental 
United  States  so  that  the  Japanese  population  therein 
would  not  increase,  it  being  frankly  explained  by  Roosevelt 
that  an  increase  of  Japanese  in  this  country,  with  their  ad- 
vantages in  economic  competition  and  general  unassimila- 
bility,  would  be  certain  to  lead  to  racial  strife  and  possible 
trouble  between  the  two  nations. 

There  is  no  question  that  the  purpose  of  the  agreement 
as  thus  explained  by  Roosevelt  has  not  been  carried  out.  It 

"The  accuracy  of  this  statement  should  be  checked  against  Table  XVI, 
Report  of  the  Conunissioner-Gcneral  of  Immigration,  1922,  which  shows 
that  47  Japanese  were  debarred  from  entering  the  United  States,  but 
only  10  of  whom  were  debarred  because  of  contagious  disease. 

"The  italics  are  mine. 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION  329 

is  clearly  established  that  the  Japanese  population  of  con- 
tinental United  States  has  very  materially  increased  during 
the  operation  of  the  agreement,  partly  by  direct  immigra- 
tion and  partly  by  birth,  and  doubtless  also  partly  by  sur- 
reptitious entry. 

Japan  declares  that  she  has  maintained  the  conditions 
of  the  agreement  in  good  faith;  and  while  not  questioning 
her  good  faith,  we  are  concerned  in  the  result.  In  certain 
portions  of  the  Pacific  Coast  the  white  race  confronts  the 
very  conditions  foreseen  by  Roosevelt. 

Since  it  is  the  earnest  desire  of  the  United  States  to  con- 
tinue and  maintain  its  friendship  with  Japan,  a  fair  and 
effective  remedy  for  this  situation  must  be  adopted  at  once. 


Arrival  of  Laborers 

Under  the  agreement  thousands  of  Japanese  women  have 
come  in  as  laborers,  designated  on  the  manifests  and  in 
the  reports  as  such,  and  have  performed  the  double  duty 
of  field  laborers  and  mothers  of  families  averaging  five  chil- 
dren. Even  the  stoppage  of  picture  brides  did  not  put  an 
end  to  this  immigration,  for  it  continued  to  come  and  served 
the  same  purposes  under  the  ^Kankodan  bride'  system. 

The  surreptitious  entries  of  Japanese,  partly  through 
Canada,  but  perhaps  more  extensively  through  Mexico, 
must  be  very  great.  The  information  before  this  commit- 
tee, from  the  Department  of  Labor  and  elsewhere,  shows 
that  thousands  leaving  Japan  with  passports  for  South 
America  worked  their  way  back  through  Mexico  and  the 
Imperial  Valley  into  California.  While  the  Gentlemen's 
Agreement  continues  in  force,  offering  a  bar  to  registration 
and  while  our  laws  make  surreptitious  entries  immune  to 
deportation  after  five  years'  residence,  and  place  the  bur- 
den of  proof  upon  our  department  officials,  these  surrepti- 
tious entries  cannot  be  guarded  against. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  Japan  be  placed  under  the 
quota,  since  the  immigration  from  that  country  under  the 
1890  census  would  thus  be  reduced  to  a  minimum.   It  has 


330  IMIMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


been  stated  that  Japan  would  accept  that  solution.  That 
plan,  however,  is  most  objectionable,  because  it  would  at 
once  place  Japan's  nationals  in  the  United  States  in  conflict 
with  our  naturalization  laws,  and  it  would  also  discriminate 
in  favor  of  the  Japanese  as  against  all  other  Asiatic  races 
ineligible  to  citizenship. 

In  considering  this  feature  of  the  bill  and  Japan's  pro- 
tests, it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  while  we  seek  only 
to  protect  our  citizens  in  this  matter  against  the  influx  of 
unassimilable  aliens  ineligible  to  citizenship,  and  are  not 
discriminating  against  Japan  in  the  matter,  Japan  herself, 
in  the  exercise  of  a  similarly  wise  protection  for  her  own 
people,  excludes  the  Chinese  and  Koreans  and  discrimi- 
nates thereby  against  people  of  her  own  color  in  both  cases, 
and  against  the  people  of  one  of  her  Provinces  in  one  case. 

Position  of  English-Speaking  Countries  on  the 
Problem 

The  United  States  has  acquired  more  Japanese  popula- 
tion than  any  other  English-speaking  country  in  the  world; 
and  this  increase  of  Japanese  population  within  our  ter- 
ritory has  occurred  during  the  understanding  between  the 
two  Governments  that  such  increase  would  be  unwise  in 
the  interests  of  both  nations. 

Great  Britain  many  years  ago  made  a  treaty  with  her 
ally,  Japan,  whereby  the  nationals  of  Japan  were  to  have 
favored  consideration  for  residence  and  citizenship  in  all 
the  dominions  of  the  Empire;  but  with  the  proviso  that 
any  dominion  could  except  this  arrangement  by  notice  be- 
fore that  treaty  became  effective. 

South  Africa,  Austraha,  and  New  Zealand  promptly  gave 
the  necessary  notice  and  provided  by  various  methods  for 
absolute  exclusion  of  Japanese  immigration,  an  action 
which  Japan  has  never  protested.  Canada  failed  to  take  a 
similar  action,  but  later  sought  to  remedy  the  omission  by 
a  Gentlemen's  Agreement  with  Japan,  limiting  yearly  ad- 
mission from  Japan  to  400.  This  agreement  has  not  worked 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION 


331 


satisfactorily  in  Canada,  and  the  Dominion  Parliament  in 
May,  1922,  requested  the  Government  to  take  immediate 
action  looking  to  excluding  further  oriental  immigration. 

Time  to  Remedy  the  Situation 

It  would  appear  from  these  facts  that  the  United  States 
has  been  grossly  lax  in  permitting  the  increase  in  her  ter- 
ritory of  an  unassimilable  population  ineligible  for  citizen- 
ship, and  that  she  has  deferred  too  long  the  adoption  of 
remedial  measures. 

The  exclusion  of  aliens  ineligible  for  citizenship  has  been 
strongly  urged  on  Congress  by  the  American  Legion,  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  and  the  National  Grange, 
under  resolutions  adopted  unanimously  by  the  respective 
national  conventions  of  those  organizations  from  year  to 
year.  The  absence  of  any  political  issue  in  the  matter  is 
sufficiently  demonstrated  by  the  widely  different  composi- 
tions and  purposes  of  these  national  organizations,  all  im- 
bued, however,  by  a  strong  spirit  of  Americanism."^^ 

So  far  as  a  student  of  this  question  may  pass  judgment 
upon  the  motives  impelling  both  parties  to  the  controversy, 
to  adopt  the  policy  which  culminated  in  the  passage  by 
Congress  of  exclusive  legislation  in  the  Act  of  1924,  it  may 
safely  be  assumed  that  various  cabinets  in  power  in  Japan 
throughout  the  critical  period,  have  been  afraid  of  a  reper- 
cussion of  sentiment,  should  they  yield  by  negotiations  to 
the  American  demand  of  exclusion  on  the  basis  in  force 
respecting  the  Chinese  in  the  United  States.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Secretaries  of  State  of  the  United  States  were 
reluctant  to  press  for  a  solution  of  a  situation  which  might 
result  equally  in  respect  to  the  administration  which  they 
represented  in  a  political  overturn  at  the  next  election, 
should  such  a  policy  precipitate  a  crisis.  The  difficulties  of 
such  a  situation  have  unquestionably  been  aggravated  by 
the  fact  that  throughout  the  many  years  during  which  the 
problem  of  oriental  immigration  has  been  agitated  in  and 

"H.  Kept.  No.  350,  68th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  pp.  6-9. 


332  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


out  of  Congress,  the  Japanese  Government  has  persistently- 
refused  to  permit  the  pubhcation  of  the  correspondence 
upon  which  the  Gentlemen's  Agreement  was  based.  So 
rigid  had  been  the  ban  placed  upon  any  disclosures  respect- 
ing the  interchange  of  views,  that  the  Committees  of  Con- 
gress charged  with  the  responsibility  of  the  preparation  of 
immigration  legislation  had  been  unable  to  form  an  inde- 
pendent judgment  as  to  the  terms  of  the  engagement  en- 1 
tered  into  during  Mr.  Roosevelt's  administration  at  the ' 
White  House.  On  the  other  hand  no  one  could  have  known 
better  than  Mr.  Roosevelt  that  in  entering  upon  an  agree- 
ment which  was  in  effect  a  treaty  without  complying  with 
the  constitutional  requirement  that  an  international  agree- 
ment be  submitted  to  the  Senate  for  approval,  we  were 
laying  the  groundwork  for  precisely  such  a  political  reac- 
tion as  developed  upon  the  publication  of  the  Japanese 
Note.^^ 

In  March,  1924,  the  House  Committee  on  Immigration 
and  Naturalization  reported  an  immigration  bill  (H.  R. 
7995),  section  12  (b)  of  which  provided  that  ''no  alien  in- 
eligible to  citizenship  shall  be  admitted  to  the  United 
States  unless  such  alien  (1)  is  admissible  as  a  non-quota 
immigrant  under  the  provisions  of  subdivisions  (b),  (d)  or 
(g)  of  section  4;  or  (2)  is  the  wife  or  unmarried  child  under 
18  years  of  age  of  an  immigrant  admissible  under  such  sub- 
division (d),  and  is  accompanying  or  following  to  join  him; 
or  (3)  is  not  an  immigrant  as  defined  in  section  3."  These 
exceptions  would  admit  persons  returning  from  a  tempo- 
rary visit  abroad,  merchants,  ministers,  and  university  pro-; 
fessors,  and  bona  fide  students.  Despite  previous  protests 
of  Secretary  of  State  Charles  E.  Hughes  and  Ambassador 
Hanihara,  the  House  adopted  the  immigration  bill  contain- ^ 
ing  this  exclusion  clause  on  April  12,  1924,  by  a  vote  of  1 
323-71  (37  not  voting). '^'^  No  specific  vote  was  taken,  how- 

The  record  of  previous  attempts  to  reach  a  solution  of  the  immigra- 
tion problem  by  treaty  or  negotiation  is  not  such  as  to  encourage  further 
efforts  along  this  line.    See  remarks  of  Representative  John  C.  Box,  May 
15.  1924  on  this  topic. 
"  Congressional  Record,  April  12,  1924,  p.  6450. 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION 


333 


ever,  on  the  exclusion  clause,  and  Representative  Burton  of 
iOhio  was  the  only  one  to  protest  against  it.^^ 

On  April  10,  1924,  Secretary  Hughes  addressed  a  letter 
to  Senator  Colt,  chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Immigration,  enclosing  a  note  from  the  Japanese  Ambas- 
isador,  in  which  the  latter  asserted  that  the  passage  of  the 
exclusion  bill  would  have  ^'grave  consequences"  upon  the 
"otherwise  happy  and  mutually  advantageous  relations  be- 
tween  Japan  and  the  United  States."   Following  the  origi- 
:  nal  suggestion  of  Secretary  Hughes,  the  Senate  Committee 
had  proposed  to  except  from  the  quota  provisions  of  the  bill 
I  (S.  2576)  '^an  alien  entitled  to  enter  the  United  States 
'  under  the  provisions  of  a  treaty  or  an  agreement  relating 
solely   to   immigration."     The   Gentlemen's  Agreement 
would  therefore  be  continued,  while  the  quota  would  be 
applied  also  to  the  Japanese,  admitting  only  146  a  year. 
Ij  On  April  8,  Senator  Reed  of  Pennsylvania,  the  author  of 
I  the  Senate  bill,  declared  the  Japanese  ^^are  a  proud  people, 
1  everybody  knows  that,  and  they  would  resent  an  exclusion 
I  law  just  as  we  would  resent  an  exclusion  law  passed  by 
I  Japan."      On  the  9th  he  said  that  the  quota  would  reduce 
i  Japanese  immigration  by  fourteen-fifteenths.^^    But  Sena- 
!  tor  McKellar  opposed  the  quota  suggestion:  ''Whenever  we 
1  permit  a  quota  of  146,  we  have  established  a  principle  by 
I  which  in  the  future  Japanese  can  come  in  here  as  the  sub- 
!  jeets  of  other  nations  come  in.   To  that  I  am  opposed  .  .  . 
because  we  can  never  assimilate  that  race  with  ours." 

Although  the  Hanihara  letter  was  printed  in  the  Record 
for  April  11,  it  was  not  discussed  until  April  14.   At  that 
:  time  the  late  Senator  Lodge  moved  that  the  proposed 
'  amendment  be  discussed  in  executive  session  since  it  re- 
j  lated  to  foreign  relations.   The  Senate  thereupon  went  into 
'  secret  executive  session  for  50  minutes,  after  which  debate 
upon  the  floor  was  reopened.    The  Hanihara  letter  was 
brought  into  the  discussion  by  Senator  Lodge  who  charac- 

""Ibid.,  p.  6441. 

'"Cnriqrcssinnal  Record,  April  8,  1924,  p.  5992.    Cf.  the  debate,  April  2, 
1924.  p.  5601. 

'"Ibid.,  April  9.  1924,  p.  6139.  "/bzrf.,  p.  6155. 


334  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


terized  it  as  "improper/'  a  letter  which  contained  a  'Veiled 
threat"  against  the  United  States.   'The  letter  of  the  JapJ 
anese  Ambassador  .  .  .  has  created  a  situation  whichi 
makes  it  impossible  for  me  to  support  the  pending  amend- ! 
ment.  .  .  .  The  amendment  has  now  assumed  the  dignity 
of  a  precedent,  and  I  never  will  consent  to  establish  any 
precedent,  which  will  give  any  nation  the  right  to  think, 
that  they  can  stop  by  threats  or  compliments  the  action  ol 
the  United  States  when  it  determines  who  shall  come  within  | 
its  gates  and  become  part  of  its  citizenship." 

Senator  Reed,  although  the  Committee  had  originally 
favored  the  continuation  of  the  Gentlemen's  Agreement,  j| 
said,  ''Now,  however,  Mr.  President,  ...  I  think  the  situ-' 
ation  has  changed.  I  think  it  ceases  to  be  a  question 
whether  this  is  a  desirable  method  of  restricting  Japanese 
immigration.  The  letter  of  the  Japanese  Ambassador  puts 
the  unpleasant  burden  upon  us  of  deciding  whether  we  will 
permit  our  legislation  to  be  controlled  by  apprehension  of 
'grave  consequences'  with  other  nations  if  we  do  not  follow 
a  particular  line  of  legislative  conduct.  I,  for  one,  feel  com- 
pelled, on  account  of  that  veiled  threat,  to  vote  in  favor 
of  the  exclusion  and  against  the  committee  amendment. 

"I  say  that  with  great  regret,  because  I  believe  that  this 
action,  which  is  forced  upon  us,  means  the  waste  of  muchj 
of  the  results  of  twenty  years  of  excellent  diplomacy.  Itj 
means  the  waste  of  much  of  the  good  feeling  that  followed! 
the  ratification  of  the  Four-Power  treaty,  and  it  means  a 
loss  of  part  of  the  good  relations  that  followed  the  prompt  J 
and  friendly  action  of  America  after  the  Japanese  earth- 
quake  of  last  year.    When  I  vote  against  the  committee 
amendment  I  expect  to  do  so  with  a  sad  heart." 

On  the  other  hand,  Senator  Sterling  (South  Dakota) 
said,  "If  we  are  going  to  exclude  Japanese  immigrants,  letj 
us  exclude  them  because  it  is  a  wholesome  thing,  the  right 
thing,  the  just  thing  to  do  for  the  United  States  and  for 
the  American  people,  and  let  us  not  make  the  letter  of  the 

Congressional  Record,  April  14,  1924,  p.  6498. 
^'Ibid.,  p.  6499. 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION  335 

Japanese  ambassador  the  pretext  of  our  action  here  today. 
.  .  He  pointed  out  that  the  Japanese  ambassador  had 

expressly  recognized  the  sovereign  right  of  the  United 
States  to  exclude  immigrants. 

On  the  same  day  the  Senate  rejected  the  proposed  amend- 
ment recognizing  the  Gentlemen's  Agreement,  by  a  vote  of 
76-2  (18  not  voting)  .^^  On  April  15  it  adopted  a  new 
amendment,  providing  for  the  exclusion  of  ''an  alien  in- 
eligible to  citizenship"  without  the  yeas  and  nays  being 
called  for.^^  And  on  the  following  day  the  same  amend- 
ment was  passed  again  by  a  vote  of  71-4  (21  not  voting). 
On  April  18,  the  Senate  voted  to  strike  out  all  of  the  House 
bill  (H.  R.  7995)  except  the  enacting  clause,  and  substitute 
the  Senate  bill.  This  bill  passed  by  62-6  (28  not  voting) 
and  was  thereupon  sent  to  conference,  five  managers  being 
appointed. On  April  19,  the  House  likewise  agreed  to  a 
conference  and  appointed  five  managers.^^  The  House  bill 
provided  that  exclusion  should  become  effective  July  1, 

1924,  while  the  Senate  bill  made  it  effective  at  once. 

On  April  20,  another  note  from  Mr.  Hanihara  was  re- 
leased, in  which  he  said  he  did  not  intend  the  words  ^'grave 
consequences"  to  be  considered  a  ^Veiled  threat."  But 
this  had  no  effect  on  Congress. 

The  Conference  committee,  representing  the  Senate  and 
the  House,  held  meetings  on  April  25,  26,  29,  30  and  May 
1,  3,  and  6.  The  President  of  the  United  States,  some  time 
before  May  1,  suggested  that  the  immigration  bill  postpone 
the  application  of  the  exclusion  provision  until  March  1, 

1925,  subject  to  this  stipulation: 

'That  the  provisions  of  this  paragraph  shall  not  apply 
to  the  nationals  of  those  countries  with  which  the  United 
States,  after  the  enactment  of  this  act,  shall  have  entered 
into  treaties  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate  for  the  restriction  of  immigration."  "^^ 

'^Ibid.,  p.  6501.  """Ibid.,  April  15,  1924,  p.  6509. 

Co7if/rcs!<io)ml  Record,  April  15,  1924,  p.  6578. 
''Ibid.,  April  16,  p.  6656.  Ibid.,  April  18,  p.  6872. 

Ibid.,  April  19,  pp.  6955,  6959. 
™Cf.  romarks  of  Judge  Raker,  one  of  the  conferees.  Congressional 
Record,  May  9,  1924,  pp.  8483,  8486. 


336  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


The  conferees,  however,  dechned  to  accept  this  provision 
which  would  have  enabled  the  President  to  provide  for  the 
exclusion  or  ''restriction"  of  Japanese  immigration  by 
treaty.  At  about  5:30  P.  M.  on  May  6,  the  Conference 
committee  reached  a  full  and  final  agreement.  The  com- 
mittee adjourned  until  May  7  for  the  purpose  of  signing 
the  report.  At  that  time  the  bill  provided  that  the  ex- 
clusion clause  should  go  into  effect  on  July  1,  1924 — which 
would  give  the  Japanese  now  on  the  high  seas  an  oppor- 
tunity to  enter  the  United  States.  But  on  May  7  the 
President  invited  the  Republican  conferees  to  the  White 
House,  and  asked  that  exclusion  be  postponed  until  March 
1,  1925.  This  suggestion — the  second  made  by  the  Presi- 
dent— was  adopted  and  the  conference  report  was  accord- 
ingly changed.  As  submitted  to  Congress  it  provided  'That 
this  subdivision  shall  not  take  effect  as  to  exclusion  until 
March  1,  1925,  before  which  time  the  President  is  requested 
to  negotiate  with  the  Japanese  Government  in  relation  to 
the  abrogation  of  the  present  arrangement  on  this 
subject."  ^1 

On  May  8,  the  original  conference  report  was  laid  before 
the  House.  On  the  following  day  it  was  attacked  by  Mr. 
Sabath,  among  others,  who  declared  that  in  inserting  new 
matter  into  the  bill,  the  conference  had  exceeded  its  powers 
— a,  point  which  the  Chair,  however,  overruled. '^^  It  was 
pointed  out  that  under  the  conference  bill  the  Japanese 
would  be  admitted  on  a  quota  basis  until  March  1,  1925. 
But  according  to  Mr.  Albert  Johnson,  chairman  of  the 
House  Committee  on  Immigration,  only  about  80  would  be 
thus  admitted.*^^ 

Congressmen  opposed  postponing  the  date  to  March  1, 
1925,  primarily  because  of  the  belief  that  the  President 
would  make  a  treaty  which  would  set  aside  or  at  least  sup- 
plant the  exclusion  law. 

On  May  2,  1924,  four  members  of  the  House  Committee 

"Text  of  original  conference  report,  Congressional  Record,  May  8, 
1924.  p.  8424,  H.  Ropt.  688. 
pp.  8477,  8478. 
''Ibid.,  p.  8479. 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION 


337 


on  Immigration  sent  a  letter  to  the  House  conferees  on 
the  immigration  bill,  protesting  against  the  settlement  of 
the  Japanese  immigration  question  by  treaty.  "After  the 
United  States  has  agreed  to  consult  the  wishes  and  interests 
of  Asia  as  to  immigration  it  could  not  consistently  refuse 
to  consult  the  wishes  of  Europe  and  the  rest  of  the  world 
in  the  same  manner."  The  letter  pointed  out  that  the 
executive  branch  of  the  United  States  Government  had  fre- 
quently vetoed  restrictive  immigration  measures  passed  by 
Congress.  It  cited  the  veto  of  the  Chinese  exclusion  Act  of 
1879  by  Hayes;  the  veto  of  a  similar  act  of  1882  by  Arthur; 
and  the  veto  of  the  literacy  test  by  Cleveland  in  1897,  Taft 
in  1913,  and  Wilson  in  1917.  "To  pass  the  control  of  our 
immigration  policy  to  the  treaty-making  power  will  com- 
pletely silence  the  voice  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
therein.  It  would  surrender  a  sovereign  right  and  give  to 
foreign  countries  a  power  which  the  country  has  never 
conceded." 

In  debating  the  conference  report,  Mr.  Raker  declared, 
this  provision,  "is  a  waiver  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  House 
to  legislate  on  immigration;"  an  immigration  treaty  "is 
contrary  to  our  form  of  government;"  "the  president  has 
no  power  to  enter  into  a  treaty  in  regard  to  immigration 
whereby  he  may  say  that  a  foreign  country  can  determine 
who  to  consult  a§  to  how  immigration  shall  come  into  this 
country,  because  it  is  the  yielding  of  sovereign  power.  .  .  . 
It  means  we  waive,  that  it  is  a  relinquishment;  it  is  getting 
down  on  the  knees  and  getting  the  President  to  enter  into 
a  treaty  that  we  may  waive  our  rights,  that  we  may  fail  to 
do  our  duty,  that  we  may  violate  the  Constitution ;  that  we 
might  become  subservient  to  a  foreign  country,  that  we  are 
afraid  to  enact  the  laws  and  enforce  them,  that  we  have 
sworn  we  would  do  in  regard  to  the  sovereign  rights  of  the 
country."  "^^ 

Other  speeches  in  the  House  reflected  the  intensity  of 
local  feeling.  At  the  close  of  the  debate,  the  House  adopted 

'*  Letter  printed  in  Conqressionnl  Record,  May  6,  1924,  pp.  8193,  8194. 
"  Congressional  Record,  May  9,  1924,  pp.  8484,  8485. 


338  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


a  motion  by  191-171  (70  not  voting),  to  recommit  the  bill 
to  conference  with  instructions  not  to  agree  to  postponing 
exclusion  until  March  1,  1925."^^ 

In  the  Senate,  debate  took  place  on  the  conference  report 
before  it  had  formally  been  presented  to  that  body."^^ 
Senator  Robinson  attacked  the  clause  authorizing  the  Presi- 
dent to  negotiate  as  to  the  abrogation  of  the  Gentlemen's 
Agreement  on  the  ground  that  ''it  would  seem  to  constitute 
a  recognition  of  the  immigration  question  as  a  proper  sub- 
ject for  international  negotiations;  it  would  seem  to  be  an 
abandonment  of  the  position  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  heretofore  has  maintained — that  the  question  as  to 
who  shall  be  admitted  into  the  United  States  is  purely  a 
domestic  question."  He  went  on  to  say  that  the  confer- 
ence report  recognized  the  ''Gentlemen's  Agreement  as  a 
treaty  obligation,  and  they  refuse  to  recognize  the  right  or 
the  power  of  Congress  to  legislate  upon  the  subject  until 
the  so-called  Gentlemen's  Agreement  has  been  abrogated 
or  rescinded  by  a  contract  between  this  government  and 
Japan  which  they  petition  the  President  to  negotiate.  If 
that  principle  is  to  be  adopted,  it  constitutes  a  distinct 
recognition  of  the  force  of  the  Gentlemen's  Agreement  as 
superior  to  the  right  of  Congress  to  legislate  upon  the 
subject." 

Senator  Lodge  declared  that  the  immigration  treaties 
with  China  were  a  "mistaken  policy".  He  went  on  to  say 
that  "In  my  judgment,  only  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  has  that  power  .  .  .  that  is,  the  entire  legislative 
body  of  the  United  States  must  say  to  the  rest  of  the  world, 
'We  alone  have  the  power  to  say  who  shall  come  into  the 
United  States  as  immigrants.'  " 

Senator  Reed  said,  "It  is  a  matter  of  lively  concern  to 
all  the  Christian  people  of  the  United  States,  I  think,  that 
Christianity  should  be  spread  in  foreign  lands  which  at 
present  embrace  other  religions.  We  have  hundreds  of  mis- 

Congressional  Record,  May  9,  1924,  p.  8498. 
"  The  report  was  not  presented  because  of  the  action  of  the  House. 
'"Congressional  Record,  May  8,  1924,  p.  8344. 
''Ibid.,  p.  8344.  ""Ibid.,  p.  8346. 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION 


339 


sionaries  scattered  all  over  Japan;  but  the  people  who  are 
backing  them  up,  the  good  Christian  people  of  this  country 
who  send  them  out  and  support  them  there,  are  all  of  them 
concerned  at  the  rough-shod  way  in  which  Congress  has 
established  its  decision  here.  ...  It  is  perfectly  obvious 
that  exclusion  can  be  accomplished  pleasantly  as  well  as 
unpleasantly.  It  is  perfectly  obvious  that  exclusion  is  go- 
ing to  be  accomplished  in  one  way  or  another,  but  the 
President  is  anxious,  I  know,  from  what  he  has  said  to  us, 
to  do  it  in  such  a  way  as  shall  not  make  the  task  of  these 
missionaries  in  Japan  any  harder,  as  shall  not  create  un- 
necessary friction  for  them,  and  shall  not  make  our  foreign 
relations  any  more  difficult.'^ 

Senator  Shortridge  said,  ^'Inasmuch  as  it  is  a  domestic 
question,  inasmuch  as  that  domestic  question  is  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  legislative  branch  of  our  Government,  it 
follows  that  control  of  such  a  question  is  not  within  the 
treaty-making  power  of  this  Government  under  the  Con- 
stitution." ^- 

As  a  result  of  the  action  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
the  conference  bill  was  returned  to  the  conference,  where 
the  provision  postponing  Japanese  exclusion  until  March 
1,  1925,  was  removed.  The  revised  conference  report  pro- 
vided that  the  exclusion  of  aliens  ineligible  to  citizenship 
(section  13,  c)  should  become  effective  July  1,  1924.^^  This 
report  was  accepted  and  the  bill  passed  on  May  15,  by  the 
House  of  Representatives  by  a  vote  of  308-62  (63  not  vot- 
ing) and  by  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  69-9  (18  not  voting). 
The  immigration  bill  providing  for  the  exclusion  of  aliens 
ineligible  to  citizenship — a  provision  effective  July  1,  1924, 
was  then  sent  to  the  President  for  his  signature. 

On  May  18,  1924,  Cyrus  E.  Woods,  United  States  Am- 
bassador to  Japan,  resigned,  nominally  on  account  of  family 
reasons.  But  on  leaving  Japan  he  criticized  severely  the 
passage  of  the  exclusion  law.    Upon  his  arrival  in  the 

'^Congressional  Record,  May  8,  1924,  p.  8349.  Ibid.,  p.  8350. 

Revised  conference  report,  printed  Congressional  Record,  May  12, 
p.  8642;  May  15,  p.  8816. 
'*  Congressional  Record,  May  15,  1924,  pp.  8836,  8882. 


340 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


United  States  he  declared  that  the  Japanese  Government 
would,  in  his  opinion,  be  willing  to  agree  to  almost  any 
form  of  restrictive  treaty.^^  Ambassador  Woods'  resigna- 
tion was  followed  by  the  return  of  Ambassador  Hanihara  to 
Japan.  On  May  26,  1924,  President  Coolidge  signed  the 
Immigration  Act,  which  was  accompanied  by  a  statement 
criticizing  the  method  used  by  Congress  to  obtain  exclusion. 
The  signature  of  the  Act  was  followed  by  the  formal  protest 
of  Japan,  of  May  31,  1924,  to  which  the  United  States  re- 
plied on  June  16.^^ 

Sub-section  (c)  of  Section  13  of  the  Act,  aims  to  correct 
the  situation  which  has  been  hereinbefore  described  by  pro- 
viding that  no  alien  ineligible  to  citizenship  shall  be  admit- 
ted to  the  United  States;  that  is  to  say,  although  the 
Japanese  have  figured  almost  exclusively  in  the  controversy 
over  this  section,  its  provisions  apply  to  a  population 
amounting  to  perhaps  a  billion  of  people,  of  which  the  in- 
habitants of  Japan  comprise  barely  three-score  millions.^"^ 
(In  other  words,  it  eliminates  all  previous  discrimination  in 
favor  of  Japan,  as  far  as  the  other  peoples  of  Asia  are  con- 
cerned.) However,  when  the  exceptions  to  this  provision 
are  carefully  examined,  it  will  be  observed  that  the  sub- 
stance and  clear  intent  of  the  Gentlemen's  Agreement  are 
embodied  in  the  statute;  that  is  to  say,  (1)  an  alien  in- 
eligible for  citizenship  previously  lawfully  admitted  to  the 
United  States,  returning  from  a  temporary  visit  abroad  may 
be  admitted;  (2)  an  immigrant  ineligible  for  citizenship 
who  continuously,  for  at  least  two  years  immediately  pre- 
ceding the  time  of  his  application  for  admission  to  the 
United  States,  has  been  and  is  seeking  to  enter  the  United 
States  solely  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  the  vocation  of 
minister  of  any  religious  denomination,  or  professor  of  a 
college,  academy,  seminary  or  university,  and  his  wife  and 

New  York  Times,  June  17,  1924. 

*"For  the  effect  of  the  ineligible  to  citizenship  provision  upon  existing 
treaties,  laws  and  customs,  see  article  by  A.  W.  Parker,  "The  Ineligible  to 
Citizenship  Provisions  of  the  Act  of  1924,"  American  Journal  oj  Inter- 
national Law,  Vol.  XIX  (1925),  p.  30//. 

"  HLnte.sman's  Year  Book  for  1924,  P-  1054,  gives  the  Japanese  population 
in  1922,  as  59,460,252. 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION 


341 


his  unmarried  children  under  18  years  of  age  if  accompany- 
ing or  following  to  join  him,  may  be  admitted;  or  (3),  an 
immigrant  ineligible  for  citizenship  who  is  a  bona  fide 
student  at  least  15  years  of  age  and  seeks  to  enter  the 
United  States  solely  for  the  purpose  of  study  at  an  ac- 
credited school,  college,  academy,  seminary  or  university, 
particularly  designated  by  him  and  approved  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  Labor,  may  be  admitted.  These  provisions  are  the 
exemptions  provided  for  in  sub-sections  (b),  (d)  and  (e), 
of  Section  4.  Finally,  more  important  than  these  classes  of 
persons  are  those  groups  defined  in  Section  3  of  the  Act, 
which  entitles  Japanese  or  any  of  the  peoples  to  whom  the 
provisions  of  the  section  apply,  to  admission  at  our  ports.^^ 

A  careful  consideration  of  the  provisions  described  in  the 
preceding  paragraph  makes  it  clear  that  the  essential  dif- 
ference between  the  situation  as  it  existed  prior  to  the 
passage  of  the  Immigration  Act  of  1924,  and  what  may  be 
expected  to  eventuate  now  that  the  law  has  gone  into  effect, 
lies  in  the  fact  that  the  United  States  Government  will  now 
determine  the  qualifications  of  any  individual  ineligible  for 
citizenship  seeking  admission  into  the  United  States;  that 
is  to  say,  the  responsibility  for  a  determination  of  the 
ehgibility  and  good  faith  of  such  persons  to  enter  regardless 
of  the  country  of  their  origin,  will  be  determined  by  the 
American  Consul  at  the  point  of  departure  for  our  shores, 
and  by  the  Immigration  Inspectors  at  the  ports  of  entry 
of  the  United  States.  To  what  extent  the  release  of  control 
by  the  Japanese  Government  over  passports  of  persons 
seeking  to  enter  contiguous  territory  to  the  United  States, 
may  affect  surreptitious  entries  from  Mexico  and  Canada, 
is  yet  impossible  to  determine. 

As  was  to  be  expected  Japanese  opinion  was  bitter 
against  the  law  and  for  a  while  the  situation  might  be  called 
^'acute.'^ 

According  to  the  Japan  Chronicle,  a  leading  EngHsh 
newspaper  in  Japan,  no  diplomatic  event  for  many  years 

**See  Chapter  VII  for  a  list  of  such  classes  who  may  enter  the  United 
States. 


342  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


has  aroused  so  much  comment  and  excitement  in 
Japan  as  the  passage  of  the  exclusion  law  in  the  United 
States. 

On  April  20,  1924,  fifteen  Tokyo  newspapers  published  a 
joint  declaration  calling  the  bill  ''inequitable  and  unjust." 
The  passage  of  the  bill,  in  their  opinion,  "would  cause  a 
grave  set-back  to  all  glorious  enterprises"  which  Japan  and 
the  United  States  had  undertaken,  particularly  at  the 
Washington  Conference. 

The  Osaka  Asahi  called  the  action  of  Congress  a  ''glaring 
breach  of  international  etiquette"  and  a  "deliberate  insult." 
The  jingoist  Yorodzu  said  that  America  "has  pounced  upon 
us  with  drawn  sword.  .  .  .  We  must  defend  our  honor  and 
interest."  It  advised  American  missionaries  to  return  home 
immediately.  The  Yomiuri  said,  "Must  we  meekly  submit 
to  this  arrogant  and  tyrannical  attitude?"  The  Tokyo 
Nichi  Nichi  said,  "The  honor  of  Japan  has  been  mercilessly 
destroyed."  Jiji  called  the  anti- Japanese  agitation  a  "grave 
insult  to  Japan."  The  Osaka  Mainichi  said  that  the  ""na- 
tional honor  of  Japan"  had  been  seriously  hurt.  The  Tokyo 
Asahi  called  the  exclusion  law  "harsh,  cruel  and  unjust." 
Hochi  said  this  "persecution"  of  the  white  races  would  lead 
to  a  union  of  Asiatic  peoples.  The  chauvinistic  magazine, 
Japan  and  the  Japanese,  said  that  the  "selfish  and  arrogant" 
exclusion  of  colored  people  from  the  United  States  would 
engender  great  antipathy  between  the  white  and  colored 
races.  The  Oriental  Economist  asked  that  the  Japanese 
Government  champion  the  cause  of  all  Asiatics  as  regards 
America.  Dr.  Uesugi,  a  professor  in  Tokyo  Imperial  Uni- 
versity, noted  for  his  chauvinistic  writings,  advocated  the 
convocation  of  a  Conference  of  Colored  Races  in  Tokyo, 
to  discuss  means  of  resisting  the  treatment  by  America. 
Dr.  Hayashi,  a  professor  at  Keio  University,  said  that 
America's  policy  might  necessitate  the  Formation  of  a 
League  of  Yellow  Peoples. 

While  the  major  portion  of  the  criticism  of  the  exclusion 
law  dealt  with  its  discriminatory  features,  a  number  of  the 
more  radical  journals  also  expressed  resentment  that  the 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION 


343 


United  States  should  exclude  Japanese  immigrants  from  the 
United  States,  regardless  of  the  means  employed. 

In  addition  to  government  representatives,  such  promi- 
nent Japanese  as  Viscount  Shibusawa,  Baron  Sakatani,  and 
Viscount  Goto  protested  against  the  act  because  of  its  ^'dis- 
criminatory" features.  Cables  protesting  against  the  law 
were  sent  to  the  United  States  by  the  American  Merchants' 
Association,  the  National  Christian  Council  of  Japan,  the 
Japan  League  of  Nations  Association,  the  National  Cham- 
ber of  Commerce,  the  Imperial  Education  Association  and 
the  Association  of  American  University  Clubs  in  Japan. 

Anti- American  demonstrations  took  place  in  some  cities, 
one  of  which  was  occasioned  by  the  suicide  of  a  Japanese 
on  account  of  the  exclusion  law.  Boycotts  of  American 
merchants  and  moving  picture  films  were  started,  but  were 
soon  dropped  because  they  injured  Japanese  as  much  as 
American  interests. 

On  July  1,  the  date  the  exclusion  law  went  into  effect, 
both  houses  of  the  Japanese  Diet  passed  resolutions  protest- 
ing against  the  discriminatory  act.  And  societies  placarded 
Tokyo  with  signs,  saying,  ''Hate  Everything  American, 
and  urging  Japanese  never  to  enter  a  "Church  supported 
or  guided  by  Americans  or  United  States  missionaries." 
Mass  prayer  meetings  were  also  held  at  all  the  national 
Shinto  shrines  throughout  the  country. 

In  the  United  States  criticism  from  many  quarters  was 
directed  against  the  method  employed  by  Congress  to 
achieve  an  end  which  it  was  contended  was  already  being 
achieved  by  the  Gentlemen's  Agreement,  or  could  have  been 
achieved  by  other  diplomatic  means.  The  New  York  Times 
said  that  there  was  "no  justification  for  the  Senate's  shock- 
ing disregard  of  the  feelings  of  the  Japanese.  The  proper 
way  to  solve  the  problem  was  through  diplomatic  channels. 
In  wilfully  ignoring  this  the  Senate  inflamed  Japanese 
hatred  of  the  United  States  and  totally  misrepresented  the 
true  attitude  of  the  people  of  this  country." 

The  New  York  Herald  Tribune  called  the  action  of  Con- 

^  Editorial,  May  27,  1924. 


344  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


gress  "an  unnecessary  affront  to  Japan."  The  New  York 
World  said,  'This  dehberate  sabotage  of  our  delicate  inter- 
national relations  had  no  other  purpose  than  that  of 
cadging  for  the  votes  of  hot-heads  upon  the  Pacific 
Coast."  The  Washington  Post  said,  'There  was  no  occa- 
sion for  the  disagreeable  happening,  no  difference  in  prin- 
ciple requiring  it,  and  no  exigency  excusing  it."  ^-  The 
Christian  Science  Monitor  said,  'Tt  is  certain  that  the 
method  is  highly  offensive  to  a  Nation  with  whom  the 
United  States  should  take  especial  pains  to  remain  on 
terms  of  peace.  ...  It  was  therefore  as  unwise  as  it  was 
discourteous  for  the  United  States  Congress  to  brand  this 
intelligent  and  progressive  Japanese  people  with  a  stigma 
only  applicable  to  the  most  uncivilized  and  barbarous  of 
Asiatic  tribes."  According  to  one  survey,  forty  out  of 
forty-four  newspapers,  east  of  Chicago,  criticized  the  pass- 
age of  this  law  by  Congress.^^ 

In  the  West  the  Los  Angeles  Express  said  that  ''Secretary 
Hughes  is  wholly  right  in  his  protest  against  exclusion." 
But  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle  said,  "It  is  no  more  dis- 
respectful to  the  Japanese  than  to  the  Chinese  to  exclude 
them  by  name." 

The  News  Bulletin  of  the  Foreign  Policy  Association  de- 
clared, "persistent  agitation,  inadvertently  abetted  by  dip- 
lomatic ineptitude  and  culminating  in  Senatorial  hysteria, 
threatens  needlessly  to  wreck  the  most  important  achieve- 
ment of  the  Washington  Conference.  .  .  ." 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Boston  Transcript  declared, 
"Congress  was  exactly  and  everlastingly  right."  The 
Hearst  papers  also  took  this  point  of  view. 

A  large  number  of  organizations  passed  resolutions 
criticizing  the  passage  of  the  exclusion  law.  At  its  annual 
meeting  in  December,  1923,  the  Federal  Council  of 
Churches  of  Christ  in  America,  deplored  as  "unpatriotic 

^Ed.,  May  27,  1924.  ''Ibid. 
«'Ed,  June  1,  1924.  ^Ed.,  May  21,  1924. 

"*Wile,  F.  W.,  Christian  Science  Monitor,  April  26,  1924. 
"''Cf.  "Exclusion  or  Quota  for  Japanese,"  Literary  Digest,  March  1,  1924. 
April  25,  1924.  ^  Ed.,  June  19,  1924. 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION 


345 


and  unchristian''  the  discriminatory  treatment  of  aliens, 
and  advocated  a  non-discriminatory  naturalization  test.^^ 
The  Administrative  Committee  of  the  Council  also  pro- 
tested against  excluding  ''aliens  ineligible  to  citizenship," 
on  the  ground  that  it  is  ''unnecessarily  and  inevitably 
offensive."  Similar  resolutions  criticizing  the  method  used 
by  Congress  were  passed  by  the  Massachusetts  Federation 
of  Churches,  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for 
Foreign  Missions,  the  National  Council  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  the  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  meeting  at  Springfield,  Mass.,  the  Northern 
Baptist  Convention,  the  Committee  representing  the  For- 
eign Missionary  Boards  of  the  United  States,  the  General 
Synod  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  America,  the  Woman's 
American  Baptist  Foreign  Missionary  Society,  the  Woman's 
Union  Missionary  Society  of  America,  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  South,  the  National  Board  of  the  Y.  W. 
C.  A.,  the  American  members  of  the  Executive  Committee 
of  the  World  Sunday  School  Association,  the  World  Peace 
Foundation,  the  National  Chamber  of  Commerce  at  its 
annual  meeting  at  Cleveland,  and  the  National  Committee 
on  American-Japanese  Relations. 

A  group  of  prominent  New  York  business  and  profes- 
sional men  sent  a  cablegram  to  the  American-Japanese  So- 
ciety in  Tokyo  "deeply"  deploring  the  unjustifiable  things 
said  during  the  exclusion  debate  in  regard  to  Japan.  The 
message  was  signed  among  others,  by  Henry  W.  Taft, 
George  W.  Wickersham,  Thomas  W.  Lamont,  Darwin  P. 
Kingsley,  and  J.  B.  Millet.^^ 

Another  cablegram  was  signed  by  30  heads  or  Presidents 
Emeritus  of  leading  American  universities  and  colleges, 
regretting  "the  inconsiderate  action  of  the  American  Con- 
gress, which  does  not  represent  the  sentiments  of  the 
American  people  toward  Japan."  The  author  of  the  mes- 
sage was  Charles  W.  Eliot,  President  Emeritus  of  Harvard, 
and  among  those  who  disapproved  the  action  of  Congress 

Hearings  on  S.  2576,  cited,  p.  55. 
""'New  York  Times,  July  2,  1924. 


346  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


were  David  Starr  Jordan,  President  Emeritus  of  Stanford 
University,  and  W.  W.  Campbell,  President  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  California. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  California  American  Legion, 
the  State  Federation  of  Labor,  the  Native  Sons  of  the 
Golden  West,  and  the  State  Grange,  protested  against 
the  attempt  of  Ambassador  Hanihara  ''to  influence  the 
electorate  of  this  country  on  a  purely  domestic  question — 
Immigration." 

Two  editorials  in  The  New  York  Times,  for  August  15 
and  19,  1924,  concerning  remarks  of  Mr.  Yusuke  Tsurumi 
at  the  Institute  of  Politics  throw  considerable  light  on 
the  subject. 

''Better  Understanding  in  Japan. 

"Even  those  who  deplore  the  method  of  Congress  in  sub- 
stituting the  Japanese  Exclusion  act  for  the  Gentlemen's 
Agreement  will  question  the  statement  of  Japan's  repre- 
sentative, Mr.  Tsurumi,  at  the  Institute  of  Politics,  that 
the  new  act  has  had  and  will  continue  to  have  'grave  conse- 
quences' not  only  in  Japan  but  throughout  the  world. 
Temporarily,  to  be  sure,  it  caused  a  storm  of  anti-American 
feeling  in  Japan.  But  even  the  efforts  of  a  few  persons  to 
use  this  to  foster  a  boycott  on  American  goods  are  now 
abandoned,  and  there  are  indications  that  the  Japanese 
are  beginning  to  realize  that  no  insult  was  meant  by  the 
exclusion  law.  Indeed,  it  is  perceived  that  the  American 
Government  has  relieved  the  Japanese  Government  of  the 
unpleasant  task  of  restricting  the  exodus  of  Japanese  labor- 
ers to  America. 

"Had  the  law  not  been  passed,  and  had  the  Japanese 
population  on  the  coast  continued  to  increase,  there  is  no 
doubt  that  feeling  would  have  become  more  bitter.   As  for 

New  York  Times,  July  6,  1924.  Also  see  article  by  C.  G.  Fenwick 
in  American  Journal  of  International  Law,  Vol.  18  (1924),  p.  523,  in 
which  he  stated:  *'If  the  Japanese  protest  afjainst  the  exclusion  provisions 
of  the  Immigration  Act  is  weak  on  the  side  of  law,  it  is  strong  on  the 
side  of  common  international  courtesy  and  decent  neighborly  conduct." 

L.tcrary  Digest,  cited. 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION 


347 


the  rest  of  the  country,  it  is  only  necessary  to  recall  the 
way  in  which  the  first  Japanese  loan  was  placed,  and  the 
rapidity  with  which  the  second  loan  has  been  taken,  to 
show  that  there  is  absolute  confidence  in  Japan.  The  finan- 
cial aid  extended  after  the  terrible  earthqual^e  is  ample 
proof  of  the  friendship  which  the  American  people  have 
always  felt  toward  Japan. 

'Tf  by  'grave  consequences'  Mr.  Tsurumi  means  merely 
a  reorientation  of  the  political  situation  in  the  Far  East, 
he  is  undoubtedly  right.  This  would  have  come,  however, 
regardless  of  the  action  of  the  American  Congress.  It  has 
long  been  understood  by  Japanese  leaders  that  the  Ameri- 
can Continent  could  not  and  would  not  be  a  suitable  field 
for  Japanese  colonization.  President  Roosevelt  made  this 
quite  clear  during  the  negotiations  leading  up  to  the  ^Gen- 
tlemen's Agreement'  in  1907.  Nor  have  his  successors  done 
anything  to  imply  a  change  in  this  attitude. 

'Those  in  Japan  interested  in  establishing  Japanese  colo- 
nies abroad  will  now  have  to  return  with  renewed  interest 
to  the  Asiatic  mainland,  and  those  seeking  for  Japan  the 
commercial  supremacy  of  the  Far  East  will  be  able  to 
oppose  American  rivalry  with  greater  likelihood  of  popular 
support  at  home. 

"Of  'grave  consequences'  in  the  more  serious  meaning  of 
the  words  there  can  be  little  real  danger.  Certainly  Japan 
has  nothing  to  fear  from  the  United  States.  If  Mr.  Tsurumi 
wishes  to  do  his  part  in  conciliation,  he  has  only  to  talk 
to  his  own  people  with  the  same  commendable  frankness 
which  he  has  used  at  Williamstown,  and  explain  to  them 
that  just  as  the  Japanese  would  not  welcome  large  and 
growing  colonies  of  Americans  in  their  midst,  so  the  Amer- 
icans of  the  Pacific  Coast  fear  the  growth  of  large  Japanese 
settlements  in  California  and  elsewhere.  There  is  no  ques- 
tion of  racial  'inferiority.'  Nor  is  there  any  intended  insult 
to  Japan.  Mr.  Tsurumi  can  bear  witness  to  the  deep-seated 
admiration  and  friendship  of  the  American  people  for  the 
people  of  Japan.  Such  a  sentiment  is  not  provocative  of 
'grave  consequences'." 


348  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


^'Through  Japanese  Eyes. 

"In  stressing  again  that  Japan  was  disturbed  by  the 
manner  rather  than  by  the  fact  of  the  exclusion  of  her 
people  from  the  United  States,  Mr.  Yusuke  Tsurumi  has 
helped  to  clear  up  a  point  but  little  understood  in  this 
country.  The  Japanese  people,  he  explained  in  his  closing 
lecture  at  the  Institute  of  Politics,  had  become  reconciled 
to  the  principle  of  exclusion  at  the  time  of  the  Gentlemen's 
Agreement.  What  they  resented  was  the  abrogation  of  that 
agreement  and  the  substitution  for  it  of  legislation  which 
implied  that  Japan  had  not  kept  the  faith.  This  to  them 
was  a  blow  at  their  national  honor. 

"It  was  the  method  rather  than  the  substance  which 
American  friends  of  Japan  also  deplored.  They  questioned 
the  necessity  of  abrogating  the  Gentlemen's  Agreement  and 
denounced  such  action  as  discourteous  and  unpolitic.  The 
activities  of  the  Senate,  in  particular,  seemed  to  be  based 
on  a  desire  to  avenge  a  fancied  threat  rather  than  to  deal 
tactfully  with  a  delicate  situation.  Not  even  the  unwise 
use  by  the  Japanese  Ambassador  of  the  phrase  'grave  con- 
sequences' warranted  the  brusque  and  unmannerly  action 
of  the  Senate. 

"Desirable  as  it  is  for  the  American  people  to  understand 
the  Japanese  point  of  view,  it  is  essential  for  the  Japanese 
to  understand  the  American  point  of  view.  Rightly  or 
wrongly,  immigration  was  the  question — in  fact,  the  sole 
question — in  American  eyes.  Disregarding  the  criticism 
of  those  fanatics  who  claimed  that  Japan  had  not  lived  up 
to  her  part  of  the  Gentlemen's  Agreement,  the  underlying 
motive  of  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  members  of 
Congress  who  supported  the  Immigration  Restriction  bill 
was  to  handle  the  entire  problem  as  a  domestic  issue,  and, 
in  the  CAse  of  the  Asiatics,  to  embody  in  permanent  form 
the  restrictions  which  in  the  past  had  been  contained  in 
treaties  and  agreements.  Rightly  or  wrongly,  the  Ameri- 
can people  were  opposed  to  any  further  immigration  of 
non-assimilable  races.    A  few  of  the  more  farseeing  felt 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION 


349 


that  by  settling  the  matter  now  once  and  for  all  it  would 
cease  to  be  a  source  of  friction,  and  the  unassimilable  aliens 
would  be  less  exposed  to  local  jealousies  and  animosities. 
In  so  far  as  the  Japanese  in  particular  were  concerned,  these 
observers  felt  that  the  history  of  Chinese  exclusion  pointed 
the  way.  So  long  as  the  Chinese  continued  to  increase  in 
numbers  race  prejudice  grew.  Since  they  have  declined 
race  prejudice  has  declined.  The  bitterest  opposition  to  the 
Japanese  in  California  is  in  those  regions  where  they  are 
numerically  the  strongest.  It  is  a  safe  prediction  that  when 
their  numbers  fall  resentment  against  them  wall  gradually 
disappear. 

'Tt  is  highly  regrettable  that  the  passage  of  the  exclusion 
bill  should  have  led  many  Japanese  to  think,  in  the  words 
of  Mr.  Tsurumi,  'that  America  has  no  confidence  in  the 
Japanese  Government,  in  its  pledges  and  its  integrity,  and 
does  not  care  a  fig  for  its  friendship  and  cooperation.'  This 
is  the  reverse  of  the  truth.  If  Mr.  Tsurumi  can  make  this 
as  clear  to  his  own  people  as  he  has  made  clear  to  us  the 
Japanese  point  of  view,  he  will  have  rendered  a  further 
service  to  Japanese-American  friendship." 

The  Japanese  Government  has  always  protested  against 
any  legislation  in  the  United  States  that  tended  to  be  or  to 
appear  to  be  discriminatory. It  protested  vigorously 
against  the  San  Francisco  school  ordinance  of  1906  and  the 
California  land  law  of  1913.  In  a  note  of  June  4,  1913,  the 
Japanese  Ambassador  declared  that  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Japanese  Government: 

"The  measure  is  unfair  and  intentionally  racially  dis- 
criminatory, and,  looking  at  the  terms  of  the  treaty  between 
our  two  countries,  they  are  equally  well  convinced  that  the 
act  in  question  is  contrary  to  the  letter  and  spirit  of  that 
compact  and  they  moreover  believe  that  the  enactment 
is  at  variance  with  the  accepted  principles  of  just  and 
equal   treatment   upon   which   good   relations  between 

^•"See  WiUiard,  White  Australian  Policij,  for  Japan's  protests  to  Aus- 
tralia against  the  latter's  restrictions  against  Oriental  immigration. 


350  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


friendly  nations  must,  in  the  final  analysis,  so  largely 
depend." 

He  said  further: 

'The  provisions  of  the  law,  under  which  it  is  held  that 
Japanese  people  are  not  eligible  to  American  citizenship, 
are  mortifying  to  the  Government  and  people  of  Japan, 
since  the  racial  distinction  inferable  from  those  provisions 
is  hurtful  to  their  just  national  susceptibility.  The  ques- 
tion of  naturalization,  however,  is  a  political  problem  of 
national  and  not  international  concern.  So  long,  therefore, 
as  the  distinction  referred  to  was  employed  in  relation  to 
rights  of  purely  political  nature  the  Imperial  Government 
had  no  occasion  to  approach  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  on  the  subject.  But  when  that  distinction  is  made 
use  of,  as  in  the  present  case,  for  the  purpose  of  depriving 
Japanese  subjects  of  rights  and  privileges  of  a  civil  nature, 
which  are  freely  granted  in  the  United  States  to  other 
aliens,  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  Imperial  Government,  in 
the  interests  of  the  relations  of  cordial  friendship  and  good 
understanding  between  the  two  countries,  to  express  frankly 
their  conviction  that  the  racial  distinction,  which  at  best 
is  inaccurate  and  misleading,  does  not  afford  a  valid  basis 
for  the  discrimination  on  the  subject  of  land  tenure." 

As  far  as  Japanese  residents  in  the  United  States  were 
concerned, 

''The  Imperial  Government  claim  for  them  fair  and  equal 
treatment,  and  are  unable  either  to  acquiesce  in  the  unjust 
and  obnoxious  discrimination  complained  of,  or  to  regard 
the  question  as  closed  so  long  as  the  existing  state  of  things 
is  permitted  to  continue." 

Ever  since  about  1911,  general  immigration  bills  have 
contained  a  clause  barring  immigrants  ''ineligible  to  citizen- 
ship" unless  already  excluded  by  treaty  or  agreement.  But 
at  Japan's  protest  against  the  mere  use  of  these  words,  they 
were  dropped.  Such  a  phrase  was  originally  inserted  in 
the  immigration  bill  of  1917,  but  was  again  omitted  at 

U.  S.  Forcifjn  Relations,  1913,  p.  633. 
'"/6i£f.,  p.  653;  cf.  also  ibid.,  1914,  p.  434. 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION  351 

Japan's  protest,  the  ^'barred  zone"  clause,  which  did  not 
apply  to  China  or  Japan,  being  used  instead. 

On  the  other  hand,  prominent  Americans  have  been 
just  as  opposed  as  the  Japanese  to  any  discriminatory 
legislation. 

As  far  as  treatment  of  Japanese  in  the  United  States  is 
concerned,  President  Roosevelt  protested  against  the  pas- 
sage of  an  exclusion  law,  against  the  San  Francisco  school 
ordinance,  and  against  anti-Japanese  measures  introduced 
into  the  California  legislature  in  lOOT.i^^  In  the  1909  Cah- 
fornia  legislature  about  17  anti- Japanese  measures  were 
introduced  but  dropped  at  the  intervention  of  President 
Roosevelt. 

In  his  Autobiography  President  Roosevelt  declared  that 
exclusion  was  ^'fundamentally  a  sound  and  proper  attitude, 
an  attitude  which  must  be  insisted  upon,  and  yet  which 
can  be  insisted  upon  in  such  a  manner  and  with  such 
courtesy  and  such  sense  of  mutual  fairness  and  reciprocal 
obligation  and  respect  as  not  to  give  any  just  cause  cf 
offense  to  Asiatic  peoples." 

In  a  letter  to  Hon.  William  Kent  of  February  4,  1909, 
Roosevelt  expressed  himself  in  favor  of  a  reciprocal  ar- 
rangement between  Japan  and  the  United  States  which 
would  keep  American  laborers  out  of  Japan  and  Japanese 
laborers  out  of  the  United  States. 

The  assurances  of  President  Taft  that  the  treaty  of  1911 
would  continue  exclusion  prevented  the  California  legis- 
lature from  passing  an  anti- Japanese  land  law  in  1911.  In 
1913  President  Wilson  protested  against  the  proposed  land 
law,  declaring  "Invidious  discrimination  will  inevitably 
draw  in  question  the  treaty  obligations  of  the  government 
of  the  United  States.  I  register  my  very  earnest  and  re- 
spectful protest  against  discrimination  in  this  case."  He 


Buell,  R.  L.,  The  Development  of  the  Anti-Japanese  Agitation  in  the 
United  States. 

Roosevelt,  Theodore,  An  Autobiography  (1913),  p.  416. 
Ibid.,  p.  411. 

Printed  in  "Japanese  Immigration  and  Colonization,"  brief  prepared 
by  V.  S.  McClatchy  (1921),  S.  Doc.  55,  67th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  p.  62. 


352  IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


sent  Secretary  of  State  Bryan  to  Sacramento  to  confer  with  ,| 
the  legislature,  but  without  the  desired  result.   In  1916  the  I 
American  State  Department  brought  its  influence  to  bear  :i 
against  the  proposed  bill  excluding  aliens  ineligible  to  cit-  ; 
izenship.   In  April,  1919,  Secretary  of  State  Lansing  wired 
from  the  Paris  Peace  Conference  that  ''it  would  be  par-  = 
ticularly  unfortunate"  to  have  anti-Japanese  legislation  j 
passed  by  the  California  legislature  at  that  time.    Just  | 
before  the  adoption  of  the  1920  land  law  in  California, 
acting  Secretary  of  State  Davis  said,  ''No  outcome  of  the 
California  movement  will  be  acceptable  to  the  country  at 
large  that  does  not  accord  with  existing  and  applicable 
provisions  of  law  and,  what  is  equally  important,  with  the  ' 
national  instinct  of  justice."   Finally,  on  February  8,  1924, 
Secretary  of  State  Hughes  protested  against  the  enactment 
of  a  discriminatory  exclusion  measure. 

Thus,  while  Congress  was  within  its  rights  when  it  pro- 
vided for  exclusion  of  all  persons  ineligible  to  citizenship, 
some  persons  felt  and  still  feel  that  we  accomplished  our 
end  in  a  rather  undiplomatic  way.  No  treaty  was  violated, 
since  the  Gentlemen's  Agreement  was  never  ratified  by  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States.  The  exclusion  clause  can  • 
hardly  be  called  "discrimination"  since  it  is  a  general  propo-  ] 
sition  applying  not  only  to  all  Asiatic  peoples  but  to 
all  others  ineligible  for  citizenship  for  other  than  racial 
reasons. It  is  easy  to  understand,  however,  that  past 
favors  to  the  jealous  pride  of  the  awakened  Japanese  people 
could  make  them  believe  that  such  action  as  taken  by 
Congress  was  discriminatory.  Yet  it  must  be  recognized  I 
by  all  thoughtful  persons  that  restriction,  even  absolute 
exclusion,  does  not  signify  racial  hatred.  Restriction  does 
not  mark  a  nation  as  the  inferior  of  any  or  all  otJiers. 
Many  individuals  of  any  race  may  be  superior  by  every 
just  standard  of  measurement  to  many  individuals  of  the 
white  race.   Yet  true  assimilation  requires  racial  compati- 

*^See  section  28,  sub-section  (c)  for  definition  of  term  "ineligible  for  I 
citizenship."  \ 


JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION  353 

I  bility,  and  any  irreconcilable  resistance  to  amalgamation 
K  and  social  equality  cannot  be  ignored. 
I     Kipling  recognized  this  when  he  wrote 

'East  is  East,  and  West  is  West, 
And  never  the  twain  shall  meet — " 

For  America,  the  Japanese  are  a  non-assimilable  people, 
as  are  all  Asiatics,  and  little  could  be  gained  by  the  con- 
'  tinuance  of  a  policy  contrary  to  American  interests  and 
•  which  removed  from  our  control  a  universally  recognized 
[  domestic  problem.    This  was  recognized  by  both  nations. 
'  Japan,  as  well  as  the  United  States,  knew  that  sooner  or 
later  exclusion  was  coming,  for  it  was  inevitable.   In  enter- 
ing upon  the  Gentlemen's  Agreement  Japan  recognized  the 
reasonableness  of  the  American  contention,  that  subjects 
of  that  Empire  be  excluded  both  as  a  matter  of  right,  and 
as  an  economic  necessity,^^^  in  addition  to  the  obvious  non- 
assimilation  argument.  Certainly  we  have  dealt  with  Japan 
in  a  more  honorable  manner  than  with  China,  although  this 
cannot  be  given  as  an  excuse  for  our  recent  action  toward 
the  former. 

The  whole  controversy  with  Japan  has  been  over  the 
method  of  bringing  about  effective  exclusion  of  Japanese 
laborers,  who,  according  to  Jenks  and  Lauck,  are  not  as 
desirable  as  the  Chinese  laborers. Now  that  exclusion 
has  been  accomplished  by  legislative  action  rather  than  by 
treaty  and  diplomatic  negotiations,  it  would  seem  wise  to 
keep  the  recent  controversy  ''closed",  despite  the  fact  that 
the  Japanese  ambassador  in  March,  1925,  expressed  the 
hope  that  this  government  would  reconsider  its  exclusion 
policy.  Recent  events  have  tended  to  dispel  virtually  all 
feelings  of  ill-will  in  both  nations.^^^  From  the  White 
House  and  our  State  Department  have  come  statements 
that  our  relations  with  Japan  are  serene,  friendly  and 

"''On  this  subject  see  Matheson,  R.  O.,  "The  Myth  of  Japanese  Effi- 
ciency," with  Reply  by  Kavvakami,  K.  K.,  in  Current  History,  May,  1927. 
Jenks  and  Lauck,  The  Immigration  Problem,  p.  252. 

"^See  Literary  Digest,  January  3,  1925,  "Squelching  a  Japanese  War- 
Scare." 


354 


IMMIGRATION  RESTRICTION 


untroubled.  From  the  Japanese  Government  have  come 
official  assurances  of  friendship.  Extraordinary  utiliza- 
tion was  made  of  the  appointment  of  the  new  Japanese 
Ambassador,  Tsuneo  Matsudaira,  to  emphasize  the  affec- 
tionate regard  in  which  the  two  countries  hold  each  other. 
Secretary  Hughes  broke  a  diplomatic  precedent  by  issuing 
a  formal  statement  declaring  that  Japan  had  paid  this 
country  a  signal  honor  by  sending  such  a  man  as  her 
envoy  and  that  ''we  can  look  forward  now  to  the  most 
cordial  relations  with  Japan."  From  the  White  House  has 
come  word  that  President  Coolidge  and  his  Administration 
look  upon  the  present  rulers  of  Japan  ''as  candid  exponents 
of  international  friendship."  Japan,  says  the  Detroit  Free 
Press,  "surely  can  no  longer  be  in  doubt  regarding  the 
friendly  desire  and  intent  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States."  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  friendship  between  these 
two  great  nations  will  grow  more  cordial  in  the  near  future 
and  ripen  into  a  deep  and  mutual  understanding  on  all 
problems  that  touch  their  respective  interests. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Note.  A  bibliography  on  Immigration  might  be  extended  almost 
indefinitely.  Especially  is  this  true  of  those  references  included  under 
"primary  sources"  and  under  magazine  articles,  pamphlets,  etc.  Only 
the  most  important  articles  that  have  appeared  in  recent  years  are 
hsted  here.  Magazine  articles  on  the  subject  are  legion.  Reference 
to  any  standard  bibliography  will  give  a  list  of  articles  and  pamphlets 
on  the  subject  prior  to  1921,  hundreds  of  which  have  been  read  in  the 
preparation  of  this  study.  Only  the  recent  ''hearings"  are  listed  here. 
My  guide  in  the  preparation  of  this  bibliography  has  been  to  list  those 
references,  primary  and  secondary,  which  have  influenced  legislation 
and  public  opinion  on  the  subject  of  immigration,  especially  within 
recent  years. 

Primary  Sources 

Abbott,  Edith:  Historical  Aspects  of  the  Immigration  Problem,  1926. 
Abbott,  Edith:  Immigration,  Select  Documents  and  Case  Records, 
1924. 

Admission  of  Mentally  Defective  Children,  Hearings  before  the  House 
Committee  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization,  67th  Congress,  4th 
Session  on  H.  R.  12470  and  H.  R.  12479,  Dec.  5,  1922  and  Jan. 
16,  1923,  Serial  4-C. 

Admission  of  Near  East  Refugees,  Hearings  before  the  House  Commit- 
tee on  Immigration  and  Naturalization,  67th  Congress,  4th  session, 
on  H.  R.  13269,  Dec.  15-19,  1922,  Serial  1-C,  and  Serial  2-C  on 
Dec.  5,  1922. 

Alien  Seamen — Insane  Aliens — Statements  on  Various  Immigration 
Problems,  Hearings  before  the  House  Committee  on  Immigration 
and  Naturalization,  67th  Congress,  4th  Session  on  H.  R.  14273, 
Jan.  30  and  Feb.  6,  1923,  Serial  6-C. 

Amendment  to  Immigration  Law,  Hearing  before  the  Senate  Committee 
on  Immigration,  67th  Congress,  4th  session  on  S.  4222,  Jan.  24, 
1923. 

Analysis  of  America's  Melting  Pot,  Hearings  before  the  House  Commit- 
tee on  Immigration  and  Naturalization,  68th  Congress,  3rd  ses- 
sion, Nov.  21,  1922,  Serial  7-C,  Statement  of  H.  H.  Laughlin. 

Annals  of  Congress,  Vol.  II. 

Archives  of  Maryland. 

Armstrong,  Edward:   Correspondence  between  William  Penn  and 

James  Logan  and  Others. 
Bennett,  W.  S.,  Effects  of  Immigration  on  Municipal  Politics.  Report 

of  National  Conference  for  Good  City  Government. 

355 


356 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Bureau  of  Immigration,  Immigration  Laws  and  Rules,  pamphlets,  re- 
ports, etc. 

Bureau  of  Naturalization,  Naturalization  Laws  and  Regulations,  yjamph- 
lets,  reports,  Federal  Citizenship  Text-book,  Teacher's  Manual, 
Citizenship  Instruction,  etc. 

Calif omia  and  the  Oriental,  by  State  Board  of  Control  of  California. 

California  Immigration  and  Housing  Commission,  bulletins,  reports,  etc. 

California  Statutes. 

^Colonial  Charters,  1639  and  '92. 
"^Commissioner-General  of  Immigration,  Annual  Reports  (very  valuable). 

Commissioner  of  Naturalization,  Annual  Reports. 

Congressional  Debates  of  1835-6,  Vol.  XII. 

Congressional  Digest,  July- Aug.,  1923. 

Congressional  Globe  of  1837-8,  1844-5. 

Congressional  Record.    An  extensive  research  has  been  made  in  the 

Record  for  a  number  of  years. 
Dallas',  Edition  of  Laws  of  Pennsylvania. 

Decisions  of  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  and  of  other  lesser 
courts. 

Department  of  Commerce,  Bureau  of  the  Census,  Renorts. 

Department  of  Labor,  Annual  Reports  of  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  Im- 
migration Laws  and  Rules,  pamphlets,  etc.  (very  important). 

Department  of  the  Interior,  Bureau  of  Education,  Bulletins  and  Re- 
ports on  Immigration  and  Americanization. 

Deportation  of  Aliens,  House  Report  No.  991,  April  26,  1926,  69th 
Congress,  1st  session. 

Deportation  of  Aliens,  House  Report  No.  1348,  June  2,  1926,  69th  Con- 
gress, 1st  Session. 

Deportation  of  Alien  Criminals,  Gunmen,  Narcotic  Dealers,  Defectives, 
etc.  Hearings  before  the  House  Committee  on  Immigration  and 
Naturalization,  March  25,  26,  April  13,  1926.  Hearings  No.  69.1.11, 
69th  Congress,  1st  session. 

Deportation  of  Alien  Seamen.  Hearings  before  the  House  Committee 
on  Immigration  and  Naturalization,  69th  Congress,  1st  session, 
Mav  14,  1926.  Hearing  No.  69.1.15.  Also  on  the  same  subject, 
Hearing  No.  69.1.5,  Jan.  21  and  22,  1926. 

Elliott's  Debates. 

Emigration  and  Immigration — Legislation  and  Treaties — International 
Labor  Office,  Geneva,  1922. 

Europe  as  an  Emigrant  Exporting  Continent  and  the  United  States 
as  an  Immigrant-Receiving  Nation.  Hearings  before  the  House 
Committee  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization,  68th  Congress,  1st 
session,  March  8,  1924,  Serial  5  A.  It  contains  important  studies 
and  official  reports  on  migration  problems  down  to  Nov.  19,  1924. 

Executive  Document  No.  70,  25th  Congress,  2nd  session. 

Executive  (House)  Document  54,  29th  Congress,  2nd  session. 

Federalist,  The. 

Hearings  of  the  House  Committee  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization. 
Hearings  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Immigration. 
Hening:  Statutes, 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


357 


House  Report  No.  1040,  25th  Congress,  2nd  session. 
House  Report  No.  54,  29th  Congress,  2nd  session. 
House  Doc.  No.  359,  34th  Congress,  1st  session. 
House  Report  No.  3792,  50th  Congress,  2nd  session. 
House  Doc.  No.  1527,  63d  Congress,  3d  session. 

House  Report  No.  1621,  67th  Congress,  4th  session,  February  15,  1923. 

House  Report  No.  350,  68th  Congress,  1st  session. 

Immigration  Commission,  Report  of,  1911.    (42  vols.) 

Immigration  for  Fiscal  Year  ended  June  30,  1922.  Hearings  before  the 
House  Committee  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization,  67th  Con- 
gress, 2nd  session,  Serial  6-B,  August  22,  1922. 

Immigration  and  Labor.  Hearings  before  the  House  Committee  on 
Immigration  and  Naturalization,  67th  Congress,  4th  session  on 
H.  R.  7826  and  H.  R.  11730,  Jan.  3-24,  1923,  Serial  5-6. 

Immigration  of  Wives  and  Children  of  Declarants.  Hearings  of  House 
Committee  on  Immigration  and  Naturalization,  69th  Congress, 
1st  session,  May  24,  June  17,  June  24  and  July  2,  1926.  Hearing 
No.  69.1.16. 

Immigration  Restriction  League,  Reports,  etc.,  of. 
Japanese  Immigration  Legislation.    Hearings  before  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Immigration,  68th  Congress,  1st  session  on  S.  2576,  March- 
11-15,  1924. 
Jefferson's  Notes  on  Virginia. 
Jefferson's  Writings. 
Journal  of  Congress  for  1788. 
Lowell,  Public  Opinion  and  Popular  Government. 
Madison's  State  Papers. 

Malloy:   Treaties  and  Conventions  of  the  United  States, 
Maryland  State  Laws,  1833. 

Massachusetts  Commission  on  Immigration,  Report  on  the  Problem  of 

Immigration  in  Massachusetts,  1914. 
Massachusetts  Laws,  1820. 

Medical  Problems  of  Immigration — Papers  presented  at  the  37th  An- 
nual Meeting  of  American  Academy  of  Medicine,  June  1,  1912. 
Moore:  Digest  of  International  Law,  Vol.  IV. 

National  Origins  Provision.  Hearings  before  the  House  Committee  on 
Inamigration  and  Naturalization,  69th  Congress,  2nd  session,  Jan. 
18,  19,  and  26,  1927.   Hearing  No.  69.2.1. 

New  Jersey  Archives. 

New  Jersey,  Commission  of  Immigration,  Report,  1914. 
New  York  (State),  Bureau  of  Industries  and  Immigration,  Annual  Re- 
port, 1911. 
New  York  Laws,  1824. 
Niles'  Register. 

North  Carolina  Colonial  Documents. 
Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records. 

Preferences  Within  Quotas.  Hearings  before  the  House  Committee  on 
Immigration  and  Naturalization,  69th  Congress,  1st  session,  April 
29,  1926.   Hearing  No.  69.1.13. 

Report  of  the  House  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  on  "Foreign  Crim- 


358 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


inals  and  Paupers",  August  16,  1856,  34th  Congress,  1st  session, 

House  Document  No.  359. 
Report  of  the  Committee  on  Selective  Immigration  of  the  Eugenics 

Committee  of  the  United  States  of  America,  1924. 
Report  of  U.  S.  Industrial  Commission,  XV,  1901. 

Restriction  of  Immigration.  Hearings  before  the  House  Committee  on 
Immigration  and  Naturalization,  6Sth  Congress,  1st  session,  on 
H.  R.  5,  H.  R.  101,  and  H.  R.  561,  December  26,  1923  to  January 
19,  1924.    Serial  1-A. 

Restriction  of  Immigration,  Hearings  before  the  House  Committee, 
Jan.  14,-Feb.  12,  1924,  Serial  2-A. 

Richardson:  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents. 

Roosevelt,  T.:  Aji  Autobiography. 

Selective  Immigration  Legislation.  Hearings  before  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Immigration,  68th  Congress,  1st  session,  on  S.  2365  and 
S.  2576,  Feb.  13-April  8,  1924. 

Senate  Document  No.  173,  28th  Congress,  2nd  session. 

Senate  Document  No.  161,  29th  Congress,  2nd  session. 

Senate  Report  No.  386,  33d  Congress,  1st  session. 

Senate  Document  No.  185,  54th  Congress,  2nd  session. 

Senate  Document  No.  1087,  62nd  Congress,  3d  session. 

Senate  Report  No.  17,  67th  Congress,  1st  session,  April  28,  1921. 

Statutes  of  the  United  States. 

Transactions  of  the  Commonwealth  Club  of  California,  pamphlets,  etc., 
contain  much  valuable  original  material. 

Tucker's  Edition,  Blackstone's  Commentaries. 

United  States  Bureau  of  the  Census ;  Census  Reports. 

United  States  Bureaus  of  Immigration  and  Naturalization:  Annual  Re- 
ports and  other  pamphlets. 

United  States  Bureau  of  Statistics:  Pamphlets,  reports,  etc. 

United  States  Congress:  Documents,  Record,  Reports,  etc. 

United  States  Laws,  Vol.  I,  Acts  of  1790  and  '95. 

United  States  Library  of  Congress:  List  of  References  on  American 

Immigration,  etc. 
Winthrop:  Life  and  Letters  of  Gov.  Winthrop. 
Works  of  Benjamin  Franklin:  ed.  by  John  Bigelow. 

Secondary  References 
Books 

Addams,  Jane:  Newer  Ideals  of  Peace,  1907. 

Addams,  Jane:   Twenty  Years  at  Hull-House,  1910. 

Americanization  Studies  (11  Vols.),  A.  T.  Burns,  Director. 

Annals,  The,  Jan.,  1921. 

Antin,  Mary:   The  Promised  Land,  1912. 

Antin,  Mary:    They  Who  Knock  at  Our  Gates,  1914. 

Balch,  Emily  G.:    Our  Slavic  Fellow-Citizens,  1910. 

Bernard,  L.  L.:   Introduction  to  Social  Psychology,  1926. 

Bernheimer,  C.  S.:  The  Russian  Jew  in  the  United  States.  1905. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


BiTTiNGER,  Lucy  F.:   The  Germans  in  Colonial  Times,  190L 
Blakeslee,  G.  J.  ed.:  Japan  and  Japanese  American  Relations,  1912. 
Boas,  Franz:  Changes  in  Bodily  Form  of  Descendants  of  Immigrants, 
1912. 

Boas,  Franz:  The  Mind  of  Primitive  Man.  1911. 
BoGARDus,  E.  S.:  Fundamentals  of  Social  Psychology,  1924. 
Brandenburg,  B.:  Imported  Americans,  1904. 

Bromwell,  W.  J.:   History  of  Immigration  into  the  United  States, 
1856. 

Burgess,  Thomas:  Greeks  in  America,  1913. 

AMPBELL,  P.  C:    Chinese  Coolie  Emigration,  1922. 

APEK,  T.:   The  Czechs  (Bohemians)  in  America,  1920. 
Carlton,  F.  T.:  Immigration,  in  History  and  Problems  of  Organized 

Labor,  1911. 
Chafee:  Freedom  of  Speech,  1920. 

Chickering,  Jesse:  Immigration  into  the  United  States,  1848. 
Clark,  Francis  E.:   Old  Homes  of  New  Americans,  1913. 
Clark  University  Addresses:   Japan  and  Japanese  American  Rela- 
tions, 1912. 

Commons,  John  R.:  Races  and  Immigrants  in  America,  1908. 

Coolidge,  Mary  R.:  Chinese  Immigration!,  1908. 

CoRwiN,  The  President's  Control  of  Foreign  Relations,  1917. 

Davis,  J.:   The  Russian  Immigrant,  1922. 

Davis,  J.  J.:   Selected  Immigration,  1925. 

Davis,  P.:  Immigration  and  Americanization,  1920. 

Dewees,  F.  p.:  The  Molly  Maguires,  1877. 

Edwards,  Richard  H.:  Immigration,  1909. 

Ellwood,  G.  a.:  Sociology  and  Modern  Social  Problems,  1910. 

Ely,  R.  T.:  Outlines  of  Economics. 

Fairchild,  H.  p.:   Greek  Immigration  into  the  United  States,  1911. 

Fairchild,  H.  p.:  Immigration,  1913  and  1925. 

Fairchild,  H.  P.:  The  Melting  Pot  Mistake,  1926. 

Faust,  A.  B.:  The  German  Element  in  the  United  States,  1909. 

FiSKE,  John:  The  Dutch  and  Quaker  Colonies  in  America 

Fiske,  John:   Old  Virginia  and  her  Neighbors,  1897. 

Flon,  G.  T.:   Norwegian  Immigration  into  the  United  States,  1909. 

Foerster:  Italian  Emigration  of  Our  Times,  1919. 

Franklin,  F.  G.:    The  Legislative  History  of  Naturalization  in  the 

United  States,  1906. 
Garner:   Introduction  to  Political  Science. 
Gavit,  J.  P.:  Americans  by  Choice,  1922. 

Graham,  Stephen:   With  Poor  Immigrants  to  America,  1914. 

Grant,  M.:  The  Passing  of  the  Great  Race,  1921. 

Green,  S.  S.:   The  Scotch-Irish  in  America,  1895. 

Grose,  H.  B.:  Aliens  or  Americans?  1906. 

Gulick,  S.  L.:   The  Ameiican-Japanese  Problem,  1914. 

Hall,  P.  F.:  Immigration,  1908. 

Hamilton:   Current  Economic  Problems. 

Hanna,  C.  a.:   The  Scotch-Irish,  1902. 

Harkness,  G.  E.:  General  Aspects  of  Immigration. 


360 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Harkness,  G.  E.:   The  Church  and  the  Immigrant. 

Haskin,  F.  J.:  The  Immigrant;  An  Asset  and  a  Liability,  1913. 

HiRSCH,  N.  D.  M.:  A  Study  of  Natio-Racial  Meutal  Differences,  1926. 

HouRWiCH,  I.  A.:    Immigration  and  Labor,  1912. 

Iyenaga,  T.,  and  Sato,  K.:   Japan  and  the  California  Problem. 

Jenks  and  Lauck:    The  Immigration  Problem,  1922. 

Joseph,  S.:  Jewish  Immigration  to  the  United  States,  1914. 

Kawakami,  K.  K.:  Asia  at  the  Door,  1914. 

Kawakami,  K.  K.:  Japan  in  World  Politics,  1917. 

Kee,  Owyang:  Chinese  Immigration,  1915. 

Keller,  A.  G.:  Colo7iization,  1908. 

Kellor,  Frances  A.:    Straight  America,  1916. 

Kroeber,  a.  L.,  and  Waterman,  T.  T.:  Source  Book  in  Anthropology, 
1920. 

KuNO,  Y.  S.:  What  Japan  Wants,  1921. 

Landa:   The  Alien  Problem  and  Its  Remedy  (English  Study),  1911. 
MacLean,  a.:   Modern  Immigration,  1925.    (A  study  of  the  laws  in 

the  different  countries.) 
MacLean,  J.  P.:  Settlements  of  Scotch  Highlanders  in  America,  1900. 
MacNair:   The  Chinese  Abroad,  1924. 
Masaoka,  Naoichi,  ed.:  Japan  to  America,  1914. 
Mayo-Smith,  R.:   Emigration  and  Immigration,  1898. 
McMaster:  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States. 
Millis,  H.  a.:   The  Japanese  Problem  in  the  United  States,  1915. 
Orth,  S.  p.:  Our  Foreigners,  1920. 
Osborne,  S.:  The  New  Japanese  Peril. 
Park,  R.  E.:  The  Immigrant  Press  and  Its  Control,  1922. 
Park  and  Miller:  Old  World  Traits  Transplanted,  1921. 
Peters,  M.  C.:  Jews  in  America,  1905. 
Phelps,  Edith  M.:  Restriction  of  Immigration,  1924. 
Pitkin,  W.  B.:  Must  We  Fight  Japan? 

Political  Science  Quarterly  (January,  1924),  Part  III,  "The  Immigration 

Policy  of  the  United  States." 
Proper,  E.  E.:  Colonial  Immigration  Laws,  1900. 
Reuter,  E.  B.:  The  American  Race  Problem,  1927. 
Riis,  Jacob:  How  the  Other  Half  Lives,  1890. 
Riis,  Jacob:  The  Making  of  An  American,  1901. 
Roberts:   The  New  Immigration,  1912. 
Roberts,  K.  L.:  Why  Europe  Leaves  Home,  1922. 
Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States. 
Ross,  E.  A.:   The  Old  World  in  the  New,  1914. 
Royce,  G.  M.:   The  Passing  of  the  American. 
Safford,  v.:  Immigration  Problems,  1925. 
Sanderson,  J.  P.:  Republican  Landmarks. 
ScHULTZ,  A.  P.:  Race  or  Mongrel,  1908. 
Seager,  H.  R.:  Principles  of  Economics. 
Seward,  G.  F.:   Chinese  Immigration,  1881. 
Shriver,  W.  p.:  Immigrant  Forces,  1913. 
Smith,  W.  G.:  A  Study  in  Canadian  Immigration,  1920. 
Spargo,  J.:   The  Jew  and  American  Ideals,  1921. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


361 


Steiner,  E.  a.:  From  Alien  to  Citizen,  1914. 

Steiner,  E.  a.:  On  the  Trail  of  the  Immigrant,  1906. 

Steiner,  E.  a.:   The  Immigrant  Tide,  Its  Ebb  and  Flow,  1909. 

Steiner,  E.  A.:  The  Japanese  Invasion,  1917. 

Stephenson,  G.  M.:  A  History  of  American  Immigration,  1926. 

Stoddard,  L.:   The  Rising  Tide  of  Color. 

Stella,  A.:  Some  Aspects  of  Italian  Immigration  to  the  United  States, 
1924. 

Stone,  H.  F.:  Law  and  Its  Administration. 
Taussig,  F.  W.:  Principles  of  Economics. 
Tittoni:  Modern  Italy,  1922. 

Treat,  P.  J.:  Japan  and  the  United  States,  1853-1921. 

Warne,  F.  J.:   The  Immigrant  Invasion,  1913. 

Warne,  F.  J.:   The  Slav  Invasion  and  the  Mine  Workers,  1904. 

Warne,  F.  J.:  The  Tide  of  Immigration,  1916. 

Weiss,  F.  F.:    Seive,  or  Revelations  of  the  Man  Mill,  1921. 

Whelpley,  J.  D.:   The  Problem  of  the  Immigrant,  1905. 

Willard:   White  Australian  Policy,  1923. 

Williams,  C.  D.:   The  Gospel  of  Fellowship. 

Wilson,  W.:  History  of  the  American  People. 

Woods,  R.  A.:  Americans  in  Process. 

Magazines,  Newspapers,  Pamphlets 

Abbott,  E.:  Tragedy  of  the  Excess  Quota,  New  Republic,  Mar.  8,  1922. 

Abbott,  E.:  Immigration  Under  Percentum  Limit  Law,  National  Con- 
ference of  Social  Work.   Proceedings,  1922. 

Alien  Land  Law,  The — Transactions  of  the  Commonwealth  Club  of 
Cahfornia,  Vol.  XV,  No.  4,  Aug.,  1920. 

America's  Immigration  Problem — Commercial  and  Financial  Chronicle, 
Nov.  4,  1922. 

American  Press — Numerous  references  to  its  opinions  are  noted  through- 
out this  study. 

Bagley,  W.:  The  Army  Tests  and  the  Pro-Nordic  Propaganda,  Ed.  Rev. 
AprH,  1924. 

Bard,  J.:  "Why  Europe  Dislikes  the  Jew,"  Harper's,  March,  1927. 
Barr,  W.  H.:  "Loss  of  Alien  Workers,"  Concrete,  Mar.,  1921. 
Barr,  W.  H.:  "The  Immigration  Problem,"  Metal  Industry,  Feb.,  1923. 
Beaman,  M.:  "The  Immigration  Act  of  1924,"  Amer.  Bar  Assoc.  Jour., 
July,  1924. 

Bercovici,  K.:  "The  Japanese  in  the  United  States,"  Century,  Sept., 
1925. 

Bernstein,  L.:  "L'immigration  aux  Etats-Unis  et  le  declin  de  I'intel- 
ligence  americaine."    La  Grande  Rev.,  July,  1925. 

Berry,  C.  S.:  "The  Classification  by  Tests  of  Intelligence  of  Ten  Thou- 
sand First  Grade  Pupils,"  Jr.  Ed.  Research,  Oct.,  1922. 

Boas,  F.:  "The  Question  of  Racial  Purity,"  American  Mercury,  Oct., 
1924. 

Boas,  F.:  "Fallacies  of  Racial  Inferiority,"  Current  History,  Feb.,  1927. 
Bridgeman,  C.  T.:  "Immigration  Legislation,"  Survey,  March  11,  1922. 


362 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Brigham,  C.  C:    A  Study  of  American  Intelligence. 

Brinley,  C.  C:  "Shall  We  Let  Down  the  Bars?"  Industrial  Manage- 
ment, April,  1923. 

Brown,  G.  L.:  "Intelligence  as  Related  to  Nationality,"  Jr.  Ed.  Re- 
search, April,  1922,  pp.  324-327. 

BuELL,  R.  L.:  "Japanese  Immigration,"  World  Peace  Foundation 
Pamphlet,  Vol.  VII,  Nos.  5-6,  1924. 

BuELL,  R.  L.:  "The  Development  of  Anti-Japanese  Agitation  in  the 
United  States,"  Political  Science  Quarterly,  December,  1922,  and 
March,  1923. 

BuELL,  R.  L.:  "Some  Legal  Aspects  of  the  Japanese  Question,"  Amer. 
Jour.  Inter.  Law,  Jan.,  1923. 

"Business  Thermometer,"  Outlook,  May  22,  1922. 

California  Commonwealth  Club  Transactions,  pamphlets. 

Calverton,  V.  F.  :  "The  Myth  of  Nordic  Superiority,"  Current  His- 
tory, August,  1926. 

Cannon,  Cornelia  J.:  "Selectmg  Citizens,"  North  American  Review, 
Sept.,  1923. 

"Check  to  Immigration  Has  Curtailed  the  Labor  Supply,"  Journal  of 

Commerce,  Oct.  24,  1922. 
Chetwood,  J.:  "Immigration — Asset  or  Liability?"  Overland  Monthly, 

Aug.,  1923. 

Collins,  J.  H.:  "Who  Will  Do  Our  Dirty  Work  Now?"  Saturday  Eve- 
ning Post,  Sept.  6,  1924. 

CoLviN,  S.  S.,  and  Allen,  R.  D.:  "Mental  Tests  and  Linguistic 
Ability,"  Jr.  Ed.  Psych.,  Vol.  XIV,  Jan.,  1923,  p.  Iff. 

CoNDiT,  K.  H.:  "Immigration — or  Machinery,"  American  Machinist, 
March  15,  1923. 

Congress  and  the  Unskilled  Labor  Supply,  pamphlet  by  Railway  Busi- 
ness Association. 

Congressional  Digest,  "Reasoning  Out  the  Immigration  Problem,"  July- 
Aug.,  1923. 

CoNKLiN,  E.  G:  "Some  Biological  Aspects  of  Immigration,"  Scribner's 

Magazine,  March,  1921. 
Corey,  H.:  "Who  Will  Make  the  Greater  America?"  Colliers,  April  5, 

1924. 

Crawford,  R.:  "Standing  Pat  on  the  Quota  Law,"  Survey,  March  15, 
1923. 

Creel,  Geo.:  "Melting  Pot  or  Dumping  Ground,"  Colliers,  Sept.  3, 
1921. 

Creel,  Geo.:  "Close  the  Gates!"  Collier's,  May  6,  1922. 
CuRRAN,  H.  H.:  "Fewer  and  Better,  or  None,"  Saturday  Evening  Post, 
April  26,  1924. 

CuRRAN,  H.  H.:  "Fewer  and  Better,"  Saturday  Evening  Post,  Nov.  15, 
1924. 

Current  Opinion,  "Keep  America  White,"  April,  1923. 
Current  Opinion,  "Keep  on  Guarding  the  Gates,"  June,  1923. 
Current  Opinion,  "Slap  at  Japan,"  June,  1924. 
Current  Opinion,  "What  Ails  Japan?"  July,  1924. 
"Cutting  Off  Our  Man-Power,"  Nation,  Oct.  18,  1922. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


363 


Davis,  J.  J.:  "How  the  Immigration  Laws  Are  Now  Working,"  Ameri- 
can Review  of  Reviews,  May,  1922. 

Davis,  J.  J.:  "Immigration  and  Naturalization,"  Outlook,  June  7,  1922. 

Davis,  J.  J.:  "Immigration  Check  Proves  Drastic,"  Journal  of  Com- 
merce, Dec.  12,  1922,  and  Dec.  16,  1922. 

Davis,  J.  J.:  "Jail  or  a  Passport,"  Saturday  Evening  Post,  Dec.  1,  1923. 

Davis,  J.  J.:   Selective  Immigration,  The  Forum,  Sept.,  1923. 

Dickinson,  E.  D.:  "The  Meaning  of  Nationality  in  the  Recent  Immi- 
gration Acts,"  Amer.  Journal  of  lyiternational  Law,  Vol.  19  (1925), 
pp.  344-7. 

Edgerton,  E.:   "Immigration  and  Industry,"  Forum,  Sept.,  1923. 
Ellis,  W.  T.:   "Americans  on  Guard,"  Saturday  Evening  Post,  Aug. 
25,  1923. 

Emery,  J.  A.:  "A  Constructive  Immigration  Policy,"  American  In- 
dustries, Jan.,  1923. 

Facts  in  the  Case,  A  Statement  Based  upon  the  Report  of  the  State 
Board  of  Control,  pamphlet  by  Japanese  Association  of  America. 

Fairchild:  "The  Immigration  Law  of  1924,"  Quarterly  Jouriml  of 
Economics,  Aug.,  1924. 

Fairchild,  H.  P.:  "The  Literacy  Test  and  Its  Making,"  Quarterly 
Journal  of  Economics,  Vol.  31. 

Feingold,  G.  a.:  "Intelligence  of  the  First  Generation  of  Immigrant 
Groups,"  Jr.  Ed.  Psych.,  Vol.  XV,  No.  2,  Feb.,  1924,  p.  65fT. 

Fbnwick,  C.  G.:  "The  Japanese  Problem,"  Amer.  Journal  of  Inter- 
national Law,  Vol.  18,  p.  523  (1924). 

Filene,  E.  a.:  "Immigration,  Progress  and  Prosperity,"  Saturday 
Evening  Post,  July  28,  1923. 

Ford,  H.  J.:  "The  Anglo-Saxon  Myth,"  American  Mercury,  Sept.  1924. 

Foreign  Language  Information  Service,  Publishers  of  Editorial  Digest 
of  the  Foreign  Language  Press  in  America  and  The  Interpreter. 

Frank,  G.:  "  Sensible  Immigration  Policy,"  Century  Magazine,  May, 
1924. 

Frazer,  Elizabeth:  "Our  Foreign  Farmers,"  Saturday  Evening  Post, 
Oct.  15,  1923. 

Garis,  Roy  L.:    "The  Immigration  Problem — A  Practical  American 

Solution,"  Scribner's  Magazine,  Sept.,  1922. 
Garis  Roy  L.:   "How  the  New  Immigration  Law  Works,"  Scribner's 

Magazine,  Aug.,  1924. 
Garis,  Roy  L.:  "Lest  Immigration  Restriction  Fail,"  Saturday  Evening 

Post,  Oct.  10,  1925. 
Garis,  Roy  L.:   "Our  Immigration  Policy,"  North  American  Review, 

Sept.,  1924. 

Garis  Roy  L.:  "The  Necessity  of  Excluding  Inferior  Stock,"  Current 

History,  Aug.  1926. 
Garis,  Roy  L.:  "It  Is  Time  to  Clean  House,"  Saturday  Evening  Post, 

Sept.  25,  1926. 

Garrett,  Caret:  "Citizens  Thereof,"  Saturday  Evening  Post,  July  19, 
1924. 

Garrett,  Caret:  "Lo,  The  Native  American!"  Saturday  Evening  Post, 
Aug.  9,  1924. 


364 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


GiLLMAN,  J.  M.:    "Statistics  and  the  Immigration  Problem,"  Amer. 

Journal  of  Sociology,  Vol.  30,  No.  1,  July,  1924,  p.  29ff. 
GoDMAN,  E.:  "Coming  Lack  of  Workers,"  Nation,  May  5,  1923. 
GoMPERS,  S.:   "Immigration? — Utilize  First  What  We  Have,"  Ameri- 

can  Federationist,  June,  1923. 
GoMPERS,  S.:   "America  Wants  no  Wide-Open  Immigration,"  Ameri- 
can Federationist,  Aug.,  1923. 
Graham,  Stephen:  "Both  Sides  of  the  Closed  Door,"  American  Legion 

Weekly,  Nov.  17,  1922. 
Grant,  E.  E.:    "Scum  From  the  Melting  Pot,"  Amer.  Journal  of 

Sociology,  Vol.  30  (1924-25),  pp.  641-651. 
Grant,  M.:    "Racial  Transformation  of  America,"  North  American 

Review,  March,  1924. 
Greenwood,  E.:  "Bootlegging  in  Humanity,"  Saturday  Evening  Post, 

Sept.  8,  1923. 

GuLiCK,  S.  L.:  Permanent  Immigration  Policy,  National  Committee 
for  Constructive  Immigration  Legislation,  New  York,  1922. 

Gutowski,  S.  a.:  "Through  the  Mill  of  Americanization,"  Scribner's, 
July,  1925. 

Hall,  P.  F.:   "Present  and  Future  of  Inunigration,"  North  American 

Review,  May,  1921. 
Hays,  W.  M.:  "Immigration  and  Eugenics,"  Review  of  Reviews,  April, 

1924. 

Herskovits,  M.  J.:  "Brains  and  the  Immigrant,"  Nation,  Feb.  11, 
1925. 

Hexter,  M.,  and  Myerson,  A.:  A  Study  in  Probable  Error,  Mental 
Hygiene,  Vol.  8,  Jan.,  1924. 

Hill,  C.  D.:  "Citizenship  of  Married  Women,"  Amer.  Journal  of  In- 
ternational Law,  Vol.  18  (1924),  pp.  720-736. 

HiNMAN,  G.  W.,  Jr.:  "National  Origins,  Our  New  Immigration  For- 
mula," Review  of  Reviews,  Sept.,  1924. 

Holmes,  F.  L.:  "Menace  of  the  Open  Door,"  Overland  Monthly,  Feb., 
1922. 

Holmes,  S.  J.:  "Immigration  and  the  Future  American,"  The  Inde- 
pendent, March  17,  1923. 

Horwill,  H.  W.:  "America's  New  Immigration  Policy,"  Contemporary 
Review,  April,  1922. 

"How  Immigration  Affects  Business,"  Industrial  Digest,  Feb.,  1923. 

Howe,  F.  C:  The  Westward  Tide  of  Peoples,  Scribner's  Magazine, 
Sept.,  1922. 

Hoyem,  O.:  "Immigration  and  America's  Safety,"  American  Federa- 
tionist, Nov.,  1922. 

Husband,  W.  W.:  "How  Let  in  the  Men  We  Need?"  Nation's  Bu^ness, 
Jan.,  1923. 

Husband,  W.  W.:  "How  Restricted  Immigration  Works  Out,"  Current 

History  Magazine,  Jan.,  1922. 
Husband,  W.  W.:   "Immigration  Under  the  Percentum  Limit  Act," 

Monthly  Labor  Review,  Aug.,  1922. 
"Immigration,  A  Look  Ahead,"  by  Edith  T.  Bremer  and  G.  M.  Fisher, 

The  Survey,  May  15,  1924. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


365 


Immigration  and  Population,  Transactions  of  the  Commonwealth  Club 

of  California,  Vol.  XVII,  Nov.  8,  1922. 
"Immigration  Law  Hurts  Industry,"  Journal  of  Commerce,  Oct.  24, 

1922. 

"Immigration  Laws  are  Vital  Issue,"  Journal  of  Commerce,  Dec.  6,  1922. 
"Immigration  Question,  The  Pro  and  Con,"  Manufacturers'  Record, 
Nov.  23,  1922. 

"Immigration  Restrictions,"  American  Review  of  Reviews,  Nov.,  1922. 

Immigration  Restriction  League  Pamphlets,  letters,  etc. 

"Increased  Immigration  Needed,"  Industrial  Digest,  Feb.,  1923. 

Independent,  "Letting  Down  the  Bars,"  April  28,  1923. 

Independent,  "Desirable  Immigration,"  Aug.  4,  1923. 

Interpreter,  The — monthly  pamphlet  published  by  the  Foreign  Lan- 
guage Information  Service. 

Irish,  J.  P.:  A  Reply  to  Hon.  John  S.  Chambers,  pamphlet. 

Iron  Age,  "Strong  Support  for  Selective  Immigration,"  Jan.  11,  1923. 

Iron  Trade  Review,  "Disregard  Need  for  Immigrants,"  Jan.  11,  1923. 

Japanese  Farmers  in  California,  An  address  given  at  the  52nd  Con- 
vention of  California  Fruit  Growers  and  Farmers  held  Nov.  10  to 
16,  1919. 

Japanese  in  California,  Comments  in  the  California  Press,  pamphlet. 

Jennings,  H.  S.:  "Undesirable  Aliens,"  Survey,  Dec.  15,  1923. 

Jessup,  p.  C:  "Some  Phases  of  the  Administrative  and  Judicial  In- 
terpretation of  the  Immigration  Act  of  1924,"  Yale  Law  Jour., 
April,  1926. 

Kawakami,  K.  K.:  "How  Japanese  Exclusion  Will  Work,"  Outlook, 
June  25,  1924. 

Kawakami,  K.  K.:  "America's  Challenge  to  Asia,"  Asia,  Aug.,  1924. 
Kellor,  Frances:    "Future  Immigration,"  North  American  Review, 
July,  1921. 

Kellor,  Frances:  "Humanizing  the  Immigration  Law,"  North  Ameri- 
can Review,  June,  1923. 

KiLBOURNE,  C.  E.:  "The  Logic  of  the  Barred  Gate,"  American  Legion 
Weekly,  Oct.  20,  1922. 

KiRKPATRicK,  C:  "Selective  Immigration,"  Journal  of  Social  Forces, 
March,  1925. 

Labor  Review,  Monthly,  each  issue  has  important  official  statistics  and 

articles  on  the  subject  of  immigration. 
Literary  Digest,  "Opening  Guns  in  the  Immigration  Fight,"  May  5, 

1923. 

Literary  Digest,  "Machinery  to  Replace  Immigrants,"  May  5,  1923. 
Literary  Digest,  "What  Ten  Years  Did  to  Us,"  June  23,  1923. 
Literary  Digest,  "The  Terrors  of  Ellis  Island,"  July  7,  1923. 
Literary  Digest,  "Uncle  Sam's  Housekeeping  at  Ellis  Island,"  Aug.  4, 
1923. 

Literary  Digest,  "Ellis  Island  Stirring  up  the  British,"  Sept.  1,  1923. 
Literary  Digest,  "Ellis  Island  A  Red  Rag  to  John  Bull,"  Sept.  22, 
1923. 

Literary  Digest,  "To  Cut  Our  Immigration  in  Half,"  Feb.  2,  1924. 
Literary  Digest,  "Who  Are  Undesirable  Aliens?"  Feb.  23,  1924. 


366 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Literary  Digest,  "Our  New  'Nordic'  Immigration  Policy,"  May  10,  1924. 
Literary  Digest,  ''Japanese  Rage  at  Exclusion,"  May  31,  1924. 
Literary  Digest,  "End  of  the  Melting  Pot  Theory,"  June  7,  1924. 
Literary  Digest,  "Japanese  Wrath  at  Exclusion,"  June  14,  1924. 
Loterary  Digest,  "Nordics  and  Other  People,"  June  14,  1924. 
Literary  Digest,  "The  Japanese  Ban  on  Americans,"  June  21,  1924. 
Literary  Digest,  "Why  Japan  Would  Retaliate,"  July  19,  1924. 
Literary  Digest,  "Squelching  a  Japanese  War  Scare,"  Jan.  3,  1925. 
Literary  Digest,  "New  Immigration  Quotas,"  Jan.  22,  1927. 
Marcosson,  I.  F.:  "Checking  the  Alien  Tide,"  Saturday  Evening  Post, 
May  5,  1923. 

Marshall,  R.  C:  "Will  Restrictive  Immigration  Throttle  Industry?" 
Constructor,  Nov.,  1922,  and  also  in  Magazine  of  Wall  Street,  Sept. 
30,  1922. 

McIntosh,  K.  C:  "Reply  to  Frederic  C.  Howe,"  Scribner's  Magazine, 
Vol.  73:  216-22. 

Mead,  Margaret:  "The  Methodology  of  Racial  Testing,"  Amer.  Jour. 

of  Sociology,  Vol.  31  (1925-6),  pp.  657-667. 
MoFFETT,  L.  W.:  "Keen  Interest  in  Coming  of  Immigrants,"  Iron  Age, 

May  31,  1923. 

MuRDOCK,  K.:  "Race  Differences  in  New  York  City,"  School  and  So- 
ciety, XI,  1920. 

National  Committee  for  Constructive  Immigration  Legislation,  pamph- 
lets, etc. 

National  Liberal  Immigration  League,  pamphlets,  etc. 
National  Origins: 

Bibliography  prepared  by  the  Library  of  Congress 

LIST    OF    REFERENCES     ON     THE    "NATIONAL    ORIGINS"     PROVISION     IN  THE 
IMMIGRATION  ACT  OF  1924 

1.  "America  invites  British  racial  control";  scrutiny  of  the  new  immi- 

gration law  reveals  a  "joker."  Current  Opinion,  Nov.,  1924,  v. 
77 :  623-624.    AP2.C95,  v,  77. 

2.  "The  American  bid  for  British  stock."  Progressive,  Jan.  15,  1925, 

V.  8:200-201.    Reprinted  from  Observer,  London. 

3.  Bacon,  Robert  L.:   "Speech  in  the  House,"  Apr.  8,  1924.  Congres- 

sional Record,  68th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  v.  65,  pt.  6;  5901-5907. 
J11.R5,  V.  65,  pt.  6.  Includes  discussion  of  "national  origins" 
plan. 

4.  Beaman,  Middleton:    "The  Immigration  Act  of  1924."    Amer.  Bar 

Asso.  Jour.,  July,  1924,  v.  10:490-492.  Economic  World,  July  19, 
1924,  n.  s.  V.  28:76-79.  HC8011.M3,  n.  s.  v.  28,  National  origins: 
p.  490. 

5.  Burr,  Clinton  S.:    America's  Race  Heritage;  an  account  of  the 

diffusion  of  ancestral  stocks  in  the  United  States  during  three 
centuries  of  national  expansion  and  a  discussion  of  its  significance. 
New  York,  The  National  Historical  Society,  1922.  337  p.  Bibli- 
ography:  p.  325-327.  E184A1B9. 

6.  "Choosing  a  quota  basis  "   American  Review  of  Reviews,  May,  1924, 

V.  69:455-456.    AP2.R4,  v.  69. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


367 


7.  Dickinson,  Edwin  Db  Witt:    "The  Meaning  of  Nationality  in  the 

Recent  Immigration  Acts,"  in  American  Journal  oj  International 
Law,  Concord,  N.  H,  1925.   v.  19,  p.  344-347.    JX1A6,  v.  19. 

8.  DouGL-ASS,  John  J.:    Remarks  in  the  House,  May  28,  1926,  on 

"National  Origins  Method."  Congressional  Record,  69th  Cong., 
1st  sess.   V.  67,  no.  141  (cmjent  file) :  10281-10283. 

9.  Fairchild,  Henry  P.:    Immigration,  a  World  Movement  and  Its 

American  Significance.  Rev.  ed.  New  York,  The  Macmillan 
Co.,  1925.  520  p.  Bibliography:  p.  501-511.  "National  Origins," 
p.  460-461.    JV6465.F3  1925. 

10.  r.\iRCHiLD,  Henry  P.:   "The  Immigration  Law  of  1924,"  Quarterly 

Journal  of  Economics.  Aug.  1924,  v.  38:653-665.  "National  Ori- 
gins," p.  660-661.    HB1.Q3,  v.  38. 

11.  Fairchild,  Henry  P.:    The  Melting-Pot  Mistake.    Boston,  Little, 

Brown  and  Co.,  1926.    226  p.  JV6465.F35. 

12.  G.ARis,  Roy  L.:    "How  the  New  Immigration  Law  Works,"  Scribner's 

Magazine,  Aug.,  1924,  v.  76:183-188.  "National  Origin  Scheme," 
p.  187.   AP2.S4,  V.  76. 

13.  Grant,  Madison  :  "America  for  the  Americans,"  Forum,,  Sept.,  1925, 

V.  74:346-355.  "National  Origins  Feature,"  p.  355.  AP2.F8, 
V.  74. 

14.  HiNMAN,  George  W.,  Jr.:    "National  Origins;  Our  New  Immigration 

Formula,"  American  Review  of  Reviews,  Sept.,  1924,  v.  70:304- 
309.   AP2.R4,  V.  70. 

15.  "Immigration  into  the  United  States — II.  The  Restriction  Policy," 

Economist  (London),  Apr.  11,  1925,  v.  100:697-699.  "Quota 
Immigrants,"  p.  698.    HG11.E2,  v.  100. 

16.  McSwEENEY,  Edw.\rd  F.  :  "Facts  and  a  Fraud,"  Columbia,  v.  4,  Oct., 

1925:  5.    "Further  Exposure  of  the  1924  Immigration  Law." 

17.  McSwEENEY,  Edw.\rd  F.:    "Nativism  Gone  Mad,"  Progressive,  Feb. 

Aug.  15,  Sept.  1,  1925,  v.  8:  543-545;  559-561. 

18.  McSwEENEY,  Edwaed  F.  :  "Making  America  Nordic,"  Columbia,  v.  4, 

Aug.,  1925:9-10. 

19.  McS\vEENEY,  Edw.ard  F.  :  "Nativism  Gone  Mad,"  Progressive,  Feb. 

1,  15,  1925,  V.  8:227-231;  255-257. 

20.  Maier,  David:  "The  Immigration  Problem;"  a  supplementary  report 

of  the  Political  Committee  of  the  Steuben  Society  of  America, 
Progressive,  May  15,  1926.  v.  9:348-349. 

21.  Maier,  D.wid:  Same.    In  Congressional  Record,  69th  Congress,  1st 

session,  v.  67,  no.  156  (current  file):  11413-11414.  Introduced  into 
the  Record  by  Senator  Copeland. 

22.  "National    Manufacturers'   Association,  Immigration  Committee," 

Report,  1925,  Journal  of  Commerce,  June  8,  1925,  p.  22.  Op- 
posed to  the  further  reduction  beginning  Julv  1,  1927. 

23.  "National  Origins,"  Outlook,  May  5,  1926,  v.  143:  10.   AP2.08,  v.  143. 

24.  "Our  New  'Nordic'  Immigration  Policy."    Literary  Digest,  v.  81, 

May  10,  1924:  12-13.   AP2.L58,  v.  81. 

25.  Parker,  A.  W.\rren  :  "The  Quota  Provisions  of  the  Immigration  Act 

of  1924,"  American  Journal  of  International  Law,  Oct.,  1924,  v. 
18:737-754.    The  "national  origins"  plan,  p.  740.    JX1.A6,  v.  18. 

26.  Reed,  David  A.:    "America  of  the  Melting  Pot  Comes  to  End." 

Effects  of  new  immigration  legislation  described.  New  York 
Times,  Apr.  17,  1924,  sec.  9:3.    Includes  national  origins  method. 

27.  Reed,  David  A.:  Remarks  in  the  Senate,  Apr.  9,  1924,  explaining  "na- 

tional origins"  plan.  Congressional  Record,  68th  Cong.,  1st  sess., 
v.  65,  pt.  6:5942-5945.   J11.R5,  v.  65,  pt.  6. 


368 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


28.  "Restriction  of  Immigration,"  Law  and  Labor,  Apr.,  1924,  v  6:93. 

HD7608.L3,  v.  6. 

29.  Saguntinus,  E.:    "The  New  Discrimination  Act,"  Columbia,  v.  4, 

May,  1925 :  5-6,  45,  50.    Opposed  to  "national  origins"  provision. 

30.  Saguntinus,  E.:    "A  New  Constitutional  Issue."    Columbia,  v.  4, 

Dec,  1925 :  15-16.    On  the  "national  origins"  clause. 

31.  ScHRADER,  Frederick  F.  :  "Mr.  Vaile  and  the  Immigration  Problem," 

Progressive,  Feb.  1,  1926,  v.  9:  174-176. 

32.  Stephenson,  George  M.   A  History  of  American  Immigration,  1920- 

1924.  Boston,  New  York,  Ginn  and  Co.  [1926.]  316  p.  "Select 
bibhography":  p.  283-302.  National  origins  provisions:  p.  189-191. 
JV6455.S94. 

33.  Trevor,  John  B.    An  Analysis  oj  the  American  Immigration  Act  of 

1924-  New  York  City,  Greenwich,  Conn.,  Carnegie  Endowment 
for  International  Peace,  division  of  intercourse  and  education 
[1924],  76  p.  (International  conciliation,  pub.  monthly  by  the 
Carnegie  endowment  for  international  peace.  .  ,  Sept.,  1924, 
no.  202).  JX1907.A8  no.  202.  Numerical  limitations:  p.  14-19. 
Appendix  "B."  A  study  of  the  population  of  the  United  States: 
p.  54-63. 

34.  Trevor,  John  B.:  "Immigration  problem;  Prehminary  study  of  immi- 

gration problem,"  Congressional  Record,  68th  Cong.,  1st  sess., 
V.  65,  pt.  6:  5469-5471 ;  5906-5907.   J11.R5,  v.  65,  pt.  6. 

35.  Trevor,  John  B.:    "Immigration  quotas,"  an  explanation  of  their 

method  and  of  their  practical  effects.  New  York  Times,  Aug.  14, 

1925,  p.  12.   See  also  article  by  E.  F.  McSweeney,  Aug.  7,  1925. 

36.  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Immigration.    Annual  report.    1925.  Washington, 

Govt.  Print.  Off.,  1925.  181  p.  Harry  E.  Hull,  commissioner. 
Legislative  changes  recommended:  13th  relates  to  sec.  11:  p.  29. 
JV6414.A3  1925. 

37.  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Immigration.    Coiigress.    Debate  on  the  Johnson 

immigration  bill  (H.  R.  7995)  is  to  be  found  in  the  Congressional 
Record,  68th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  vol.  65,  on  the  following  pages: 

H.  R.  7995. — To  limit  the  immigration  of  aliens  into  the  United 
States.  Introduced  by  Mr.  Johnson  and  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  Immigration  and  Naturalization,  p.  4395.  Reported  with 
amendments  (H.  Rept.  350),  p.  4912;  minority  views  submitted 
(H.  Rept.  350,  pt.  2),  p.  5117;  debated,  3424,  5577,  5588,  5640- 
5707,  5833-5907,  5908-5936,  6110-6150,  6153-6174,  6225-6274,  6476, 
8639. — Amended  and  passed  House,  6258. — Amended  and  passed 
Senate  (S.  2576),  6644-6649.— Conference  report  submitted  in  House 
(H.  Rept.  688),  8218.— Debated,  8218-8249,  8250,  8279,  8639.— Re- 
committed to  comm.  of  conference,  8249. — Conference  report  (H. 
Rept.  716),  8627.— Debated,  8626-8652,  8655.— Agreed  to,  8652.— 
Conf.  report.  Senate.  8568,  8575.— Agreed  to,  8589.— Examined  and 
signed,  8511,  8738.  8958.— Approved,  10068. 

Senate,  2576.  The  bill  was  introduced  into  the  Senate,  p.  2829; 
reported,  5055;  debated,  p.  5393,  5409,  5459-5477,  5553,  5565,  5737, 
5802,  5823,  5941,  6302,  6354,  6366,  6373,  6457,  6533,  6608-6644. 

Many  of  the  debates  include  discussions  of  the  national  origins 
plan. 

38.  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Immigration.   House.    Committee  on  immigration 

and  naturalization.  Restriction  of  immigration.  Hearings  .  .  . 
Hou.se  of  Representatives,  Sixty-eighth  Congress,  first  session,  on 
H.  R.  5,  H.  R.  101,  H.  R.  561,  H.  R.  6540.  Washington,  Govern- 
ment printing  office.  1925.    1433,  1439-1462  p.  JV6505.19. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


369 


39.  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Immigration.    Restriction  of  immigration  .  .  .  Re- 

port. (To  accompany  H.  R.  7995.)  [Washington,  Government 
printing  office,  1924]  41  p.  (68th  Cong.  1st  sess.  House.  Rept. 
350.)    See  especially  p.  12-17,  26-40.  JV6505.1924b. 

40.  U.  S.  Bureau  oj  Immigration.    Senate.    C ommittee  on  immigration. 

Selective  immigration  legislation.  Hearings  on  S.  2365  and  S.  2576, 
a  bill  to  limit  the  immigration  of  aliens  into  the  United  States, 
and  to  provide  a  system  of  selection  in  connection  therewith,  and 
for  other  purposes.  Feb.  13-14,  20-21,  Mar.  8,  13-14,  Apr.  7-8,  1924. 
Washington,  Government  printing  office,  1924.  314  p.  (68th  Cong. 
1st  sess.)  JV6505.1924d. 

41.  U.  S.  Bureau  oj  Immigration.    Conference  committees,  1923-1924- 

Immigration  of  aliens  .  .  .  Conference  report.  (To  accompany 
H.  R.  7995)  [Washington,  Government  printing  office,  1924]  22  p. 
(68th  Cong.,  1st  sess.    House.   Rept.  688.)  JV6505.192c. 

42.  U.  S.  Congress.    Conference  committees,  1923-1924-    Immigration  of 

aliens  into  the  United  States.  .  .  Conference  report.  (To  accom- 
pany H.  R.  7995).  20  p.  (68th  Cong.,  1st  sess.;  House.  Rept. 
716).  JV6505.1924f. 

43.  U.  S.  Congress.   Dept.  of  Labor.   Letter  from  the  Secretary  of  Labor 

to  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Immigration  and  Naturaliza- 
tion, House  of  Representatives,  transmitting  suggestions  in  con- 
nection with  impending  immigration  legislation.  Washington, 
Government  printing  office,  1924.  20  p.  Nationality  and  per- 
centare  limitation:  p.  5.   JV6491. 1923d. 

44.  U.  S.  Congress.    Dept.  of  State.   Letter  from  the  Secretary  of  State 

[Charles  E.  Hughes]  relating  to  the  selective  immigration  act. 
Apr.  8,  1924.  Congressional  Record,  68th  Cong.,  1st  sess.  v.  65, 
pt.  6:5810-5813.  Includes  discussions  on  Sec.  11.  Jll.  R5,  v.  65, 
pt.  6. 

45.  Vaile,  Willi.^m  N.:   "Germany  and  the  immigration  quota."  Ex- 

tension of  remarks  in  the  House,  Dec.  16,  1925.  Congressional 
Record,  69th  Congress  1st  session,  v.  67,  No.  12  (current  file) : 
823-826. 

"The  national  origins  plan  is  fair  to  all;  it  avoids  completely 
all  racial  discrimination,  and  it  will  preserve  the  blood  of  the 
United  States  in  its  present  proportions." 

46.  W.ARD,  R.  de  C. :  "New  Immigration  Law  and  its  Operation."  Scien- 

tific Monthly,  July,  1925,  v.  21:45-53.  "National  Origins:"  p.  46 
(footnote),  53.    Q1.S817,  v.  21. 

47.  Ward,  R.  de  C:   "Our  new  immigration  Policy,"  Foreign  Affairs, 

Sept.  15,  1924,  v.  3:  39-111.  "Racial  Origin  Provision:"  p.  107-108. 
D410.F6,  v.  3. 

48.  Wasson,  R.  Gordon:   "New  American  Immigration  Policy,"  Spec- 

tator, Mar.  28,  1925,  v.  134:491-492.  "National  origins:"  p.  492. 
AP4.S7,  V.  134. 

"New  Immigration  Law,  An  Epocli  in  American  Industry,  "Industrial 
Management,  May,  1924. 

New  Republic,  "No  Immigrant  Flood,"  Dec.  13,  1922. 

New  Republic,  "Uses  of  Labor  Shortage,"  Feb.  14,  1923. 

Neio  Republic,  "Immigration  and  Labor  Shortage,"  Aug.  1,  1923. 

New  York  Times,  the  Editorials  and  Articles  therein. 

"No  Scarcity  of  Labor  Would  Justify  Encouraging  Increased  Immigra- 
tion," Manufacturers'  Record,  Nov.  9,  1922. 


370 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Outlook,  "Labor  Shortage  and  Immigration,"  Feb.  7,  1923. 
Outlook,  "Stocking  America  with  People,"  May  23,  1923. 
Outlook,  "Choose  Citizens,  Not  Let  Them  in,"  Dec.  12,  1923. 
Parker,  A.  W.:   "The  Quota  Provisions  of  the  Immigration  Act  of 

1924,"  Amer.  Journal  of  International  Law,  Vol.  18  (1924),  pp. 

737-754. 

Parker,  A.  W.:  "The  Ineligible  to  Citizenship  Provision  of  the  Act 
of  1924,"  Amer.  Journal  of  International  Law,  Vol.  XIX  (1925), 
p.  30  ff. 

Pinter,  R.,  and  Keller,  R.:  "Intelligence  Tests  of  Foreign  Children," 

Jr.  Ed.  Psych.,  Aug.,  1922,  p.  214  ff. 
"Possibilities  in  American  Immigration  Policy,"  World's  Work,  Nov., 

1924. 

"Proposed  Change  in  Immigration  Law."  Merchants  Suggest  Control 
in  Europe,  Journal  of  Commerce,  Mar.  10,  1922. 

Ravage,  M.  E.:  "America  Goes  A-Marketing,"  Saturday  Evening  Post, 
Sept.  15,  1923. 

"Regulation  of  Immigration  into  the  United  States,"  International 

Labor  Review,  Jan.,  1922. 
Review  of  Reviews,  "Italian  Immigration,"  July,  1924. 
Roberts,  K.  L.  :   "Shutting  the  Gates,"  Saturday  Evening  Post,  Jan.  28, 

1922. 

Roberts,  K.  L.:    "Slow  Poison,"  Saturday  Evening  Post,  Feb.  2,  1924. 
Roberts,  K.  L.:    "East  is  East,"  Saturday  Evening  Post,  Feb.  23,  1924. 
Roberts,  K.  L.:    "And  West  is  West,"  Saturday  Evening  Post,  March 
15,  1924. 

Roosevelt,  T.:    "America  and  Japan,"  pamphlet,  reprinted  from  The 

New  York  Times. 
RosENQUiST,  C.  M.:  "Measuring  Americanism,"  Southwestern  Pol.  and 

Soc.  Sci.  Quar.,  Mar.,  1926. 
Ross,  E.  A.:   "Menace  of  the  Open  Door,"  Overland  Monthly,  Feb., 

1922. 

RussBLL,  C.  E.:  "The  Nordic  Goes  A-Saber-Rattling,"  Century,  April, 
1927. 

Saturday  Evening  Post  editorials:    November  18,  1922;  March  29, 

1924;  June  28,  1924. 
ScHREiNER,  G.  A.:   "This  Being  an  Immigrant,"  American  Mercury, 

Dec,  1924. 

Seager,  H.  R.:     "Economist's  Support  of  Restricted  Immigration," 

Management  Engineering,  Jan.,  1923. 
"Shall  We  Register  Our  Aliens?"  Pro,  H.  P.  Fairchild;  Con,  0.  G. 

Villard,  Forum,  March,  1926. 
"Shall  We  Turn  Them  Back  to  Their  Persecutors?"  Outlook,  Dec.  27, 

1922. 

"Smith,  A.:  "Scarcity  of  Common  Labor  in  Industry,"  Iron  Age,  Sept. 
21,  1922. 

Speek,  p.  a.:    "The  Meaning  of  Nationality  and  Americanization," 

Amer.  Jour.  Sociol.,  Sept.,  1926. 
Speranza,  G.:    "The  Immigration  Peril,"  Series  of  Articles  in  The 

World's  Work,  Vol.  47. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


371 


Statistics  Relative  to  Japanese  Immigration  and  The  Japanese  in 
California,  pamphlet  by  the  Japanese  Association  of  America. 

Stephenson,  G.  M.:  "Background  of  the  Beginnings  of  Swedish 
Immigration,  1850-1875,"  Am.  Hist.  Rev.,  July,  1926.  _ 

Stoddard,  Lothrop:  Series  of  articles  in  Saturday  Evening  Post,  be- 
ginning with  issue  of  March  22,  1924. 

Strother,  F.:    'Immigration  Peril,"  World's  Work,  Oct.,  1923. 

Sweeney,  A.:  ''Mental  Tests  for  Immigrants,"  North  American  Re- 
view,  May,  1922. 

Thayer,  W.  R.:   "Throwing  Away  Our  Birthright,"  North  American 

Review,  Feb.,  1922. 
"Three  Per  Cent  Immigration  Biologically  r'onsidered,"  World's  Work, 

Oct.,  1922. 

Treadway:    "Keeping  the  Alien  out  of  America,"  Current  History 

Magazine,  Sept.,  1924. 
Trevor,  John  B.:   "An  Analysis  of  the  American  Immigration  Act 

of  1924,"  International  Conciliation  Pamphlet,  No.  202,  Sept., 

1924. 

"Unemployment  and  Immigration,"  World's  Work,  Dec,  1922. 

Wallace,  J.  B.:  "Waving  the  Yellow  Flag  in  California,"  pamphlet, 
reprint  from  The  Dearborn  Independent. 

"Wanted — An  Immigration  Policy,"  New  Republic,  Dec.  26,  1914. 

Ward,  Robert  DeC:  "Immigration  and  the  Three  Per  Cent  Restrictive 
Law,"  Journal  of  Heredity,  Aug.-Sept.,  1921. 

Ward,  Robert  DeC:  "Some  Thoughts  on  Immigration  Restriction," 
Scientific  Monthly,  Oct.,  1922. 

Ward,  Robert  DeC:  "Our  Immigration  Problem  Today,"  Scientific 
Monthly,  Dec,  1922. 

Ward,  Robert  DeC:  "Our  New  Immigration  Policy,"  Foreign  Af- 
fairs, Sept.,  1924. 

Ward,  Robert  DeC:  "Recent  Developments  in  Immigration,"  Scientific 
Monthly  for  Dec,  1923. 

Ward,  Robert  DeC:  "Higher  Mental  and  Physical  Standards  for  Im- 
migrants, Scientific  Monthly,  Nov.,  1924. 

Wheelwright,  W.  D.:  "Disapproving  Anti-Japanese  Agitation," 
pamphlet,  reprinted  from  the  Oregon  Voter,  Portland,  Feb.  14, 
1920. 

WooLSTON,  H.:  "Wanted,  An  American  Immigration  Policy,"  Jour,  of 

Social  Forces,  Sept.,  1924,  Vol.  II,  pp.  666-670. 
"Would  Admit  Aliens  Needed  in  Industries,"  Wall  Street  Journal, 

Dec  19,  1922. 

Young,  J.  C:  "Breaking  into  the  United  States,"  World's  Work, 
Nov.,  1924. 

Young,  K.:  "Mental  Differences  in  Certain  Immigrant  Groups,"  Uni- 
versity of  Oregon  Publication,  Vol.  I,  July,  1922,  No.  XL 


INDEX 


Adams,  John,  24 

Administration,  powers  of  officials, 
88,  92,  96,  99,  100,  101,  102,  107- 
108,  109,  112,  115,  118,  120, 
134,  137,  150,  300,  302-303 

Alien  and  Sedition  Laws,  32 

Alien  contract  labor  law,  90-96,  105, 
132-133 

Alien,  definition  of,  125 

Anarchists,  102,  104,  108,  126,  138- 
140,  219-220 

Antin,  Mary,  note  on,  26 

Archer,  W.  S,  30 

Army  tests,  229-236;  criticisms  of, 
236-239 

Assimilation,  14,  20,  25,  29,  31,  34, 
45,  119,  122,  211,  213,  217,  220, 
222,  223-224,  228-229,  235-236,  237, 
248,  251-252,  253,  269-270,  290-291, 
317,  318-319,  320,  352-353 

Austro-Hungarian  immigration,  212- 
213 

Bagley,  W.,  236 

Balance  sheet,  52-54 

Barred  zone,  38-39,  128-130,  306-307 

Bayard,  J.  A.,  30 

Bernard,  L.  L.,  238 

Boas,  F.,  227,  239 

Bonds  for  immigrants,  16,  35,  36, 

74,  75,  79,  100,  113 
Brigham,  C.  C,  236 
Buchanan,  James,  30,  34 
Burden  of  proof,  93,  199,  300 
Burlingame  treaty,  288-289,  292 
Burnett,  Representative,  123,  124 

Catholics,  colonial  opposition  to,  17; 
opposition  of  the  Nativistic  party 
to,  48 

Causes   of   English  emigration  to 

American  colonies,  3-4 
Causes  of  modern  immigration,  117 
Causes  of  opposition,  colonial,  19; 

after  1830,  44-46,  52-56 
Chambers,  J.  S.,  317 


Characteristics  of  southern  colo- 
nists, 4;  of  northern  colonists,  4 

Chew  Heong  v.  U.  S,  296 

Chinese,  early  opposition  to,  286- 
288;  assimilation  of,  290;  con- 
gressional investigation  concern- 
ing, 290-292;  Act  of  March  3, 
1875,  292 ;  treaty  of  1880,  292-294 ; 
exclusion  of,  294-296;  treaty  of 
1888,  296-298;  act  of  1888,  298- 
299;  exclusion  cases,  299,  300; 
Act  of  1892,  299-300;  treaty  of 
1894,  302;  Act  of  1902,  303-304; 
statistics,  305,  309 

Chy  Lung  v.  J.  H.  Freeman  et  al., 
288 

Citizenship  of  foreign  women,  135, 

140,  176-177 
City  of  New  York  v.  Milne,  68-71, 

77 

Clay,  Henry,  47-49 
Cleveland,  G.,  115,  124,  298,  299, 
301 

Colonial  arguments  against  immi- 
gration, 19 

Colonial  immigration,  English,  3; 
southern,  4;  northern,  4;  causes 
of,  3-4 ;  effects  of,  18,  20-21 

Colonial  immigrants,  5 

Colonial  legislation,  13-17 

Colonial  opposition,  6,  9,  13-17,  20- 
21 

Colonies,  racial  characteristics  of,  3, 
19,  20 

Commissioner-General  of  Immigra- 
tion, 102,  107,  109,  172,  173,  174, 
176,  177,  178,  181,  184,  196,  197, 
199,  276,  327 

Commissioner  of  Immigration,  85 

Commission  on  immigration,  113; 
recommendations  of,  117-122 

Commons,  J.  R.,  5,  8,  19,  212,  213, 
214,  216 

Communism,  221-222 

Conin-essional  debates  of  1790  and 
1798,  28-30 


374 


IXDEX 


Constitutional   cl.iuses   relative  to 

immigration.  27,  59 
Consular  reports,  40-42,  44 
Continental  Congress,  resolution  of, 

22 

Contiguous   territorv.  immigration 

from.  S9.  97.  104^  114.  132.  146. 

152.  15S.  160-161,  167 
Contract  labor.  90-92.  95.  104-105. 

111.  lis.  125.  132-133 
Coolidiie.  C.  169-170.  175,  1S4,  200, 

335-336,  340.  354 
Coolie  trade,  legislation  against,  S6, 

87 

Craw-ford.  W.  H..  34 
Criminals.  12.  13.  15.  IS.  36-44.  51- 
56,  S7-SS,  US,  119 

Davis,  J.  J.,  174.  175.  1S4.  270 

Davis,  John,  37-3S 

DeMotte,  M.,  319 

Deportation,  first  case  of.  13:  right 

of.  32.  39.  51-52.  SS-89.  92.  93. 

97,  107.  112,  114,  115,  lis.  120, 

134-136.  140.  194.  199.  300.  313 
Dept.  of  Labor.  115 
Dillindiam,  W.  P..  123.  217-21S 
Dillingham-Bumett  Bill.  123 
Discrimination,  248.   252.  263-265. 

268-270.  272.  304.  320.  349-351.  352 
Distribution  of  Immigmnts,  S5.  113. 

121.  222-223 
Dutch  colonists,  4 

Ekiu  v.  United  States,  96 
Elections,  effect  of  imniigratioii  in, 

34,  45-46,  47-50 
English-speaking  immigrants,  168 
r.verett,  A.  H..  44-45 
Examination  of  immigrants.  SS.  96, 

102 

Excess  quotas,  148.  150.  161.  162 

Excluded  classes.  S6.  87.  SS.  89.  95. 
104.  111.  114.  115.  lis.  125-126. 
127.  135.  199 

Exclusion  laws.  12S-130.  294-296. 
298-299.  303-304,  306-307,  320.  330, 
340-341.  353 

Exempt  classes,  under  contract  la- 
bor, 90-91,  96,  105,  132-133:  un- 
der quota  limitations.  143.  145 

Fairchild,  H.  P.,  3,  14,  19,  35.  45, 
84,  239 

Families  of  immigrants,  173-176 

Fish,  Hamilton,  42-43 

Ford  committee,  report  of,  1889,  94 


Franklin,  Benjamin,  10.  25 

Frelinghuvsen.  T.,  47-49 

Foreign  born  in  U.  S.,  220,  222-223 

Garner,  J.  W.,  252 

Gavit,  J.  P.,  227-228 

Gegiow  V.  Uhl,  126 

Gentlemen's    agreement,    312.  322, 

324-325,  326.  327-329.  335 
German  immigrants.  7-10 
Gibbons  v.  Osden.  61-62.  69,  72 
Gillam,  J.  M.,  248-249 
Gottlieb  case,  161.  179-181 
Grant,  U.  S.,  289-290 
Groves  et  al.  v.  Slaughter,  71-72 

Hall.  P.  F..  102 

Hanihara.  332.  333.  335 

Harding.  W.  G..  149.  1S4 

Hartford  Convention.  33-34 

Haskin.  F.  J..  224-225 

Hawaii,  303.  310-311.  322 

Head  tax,  15,  74,  76,  77,  79,  80,  87- 

88.  101.  104.  109.  110.  122,  125 
Henderson  et  al.  v.  Mayor  of  New 

York  et  al..  79 
Hexter.  M..  236 
Hmdus.  307 
Hoover.  H..  275 
Hughes.  C.  E..  332-333.  352.  354 
Huguenots.  10-11 

Illiteracv.  102.  103.  115.  122.  123- 
124;  Act  of  1917.  130-132  _ 

Immigrants,  definition  of.  171 

Immigration  Commission.  113;  rec- 
ommendations of,  117-122 

Indentured  servants,  S-9.  11-13  _ 

Inspection  of  immigrants.  15.  35.  36. 
41-42.  44.  69.  74.  75.  79.  80-81.  88. 
100.  133-134 

Iredell,  Justice.  61 

Italian  immigration,  209-212 

Jackson,  Andrew,  34 

Japanese,  statistics,  309-311.  315: 
Gentlemen's  agreement,  312,  322, 
324-325,  326.  327-329.  335;  picture 
brides.  312.  326:  Kankodan  brides. 
312.  329;  opposition  to.  314;  Cal- 
ifornia's attitude.  315-321;  land 
ownership,  319-320.  325-326  :_presi- 
dential  proclamation  of  1907.  321- 
322:  treaty  of  1894.  322-323: 
treaty  of  1911,  323-324;  House 
Report.  327-331;  surreptitious  en- 
tries, 329;  history  of  provision  in 


INDEX 


375 


Act  of  1924,  332-341;  Hanihara, 
332,  333-335;  protests  in  Japan, 
341-343;  opinions  in  U.  S.,  343- 
349,  351-352;  fear  of  discrimina- 
tion, 349-350 
Jefferson,  Thomas,  25-26 
Jennings,  H.  S.,  249 
Jewish  immigration,  214-215 
Johnson,  A.,  Foreword,  201,  274-275, 
276,  336 

Johnson  bill,  history  of,  170-171,  200- 

201 ;  provisions  in,  171 
Johnson,  Henry,  31,  43 
Johnson,  Hiram,  278-279 

Kankodan  brides,  312,  329 
Kidnaped  immigrants,  11-12 
Kirkpatrick,  C,  237-238,  249-250 
Know-nothing  party,  50 

Labor,  competition  of,  45,  103,  111, 
119,  124,  219,  225,  290-291,  315, 
329;  supply  of,  35,  121-122 

Landownership  bv  Japanese,  315- 
316.  319-320,  325-326 

Latitude  and  longitude  clause  (see 
barred  zone) 

Laughlin,  H.  H,  55-56,  239-248, 
criticisms  of,  248-251 

Legislation,  colonial,  13-17 

Lem  Moon  Sing  v.  United  States, 
102 

License  cases,  73 

Li  Sing  V.  United  States,  102 

List,  F.,  recommendations  of,  41- 

42,  190 
Literacy  (see  illiteracy) 
Lowell,  A.  L.,  252 

Madison,  James,  28-29,  59-60 
Manifests,  14  16,  35,  36,  69,  77,  79, 

83,  99-100,  106,  112,  114,  134 
Marshall,  Chief  Justice,  62 
Martin,  Luther,  60 
May  and  Pollock,  246 
Mayo-Smith,    R.    (see   Smith,  R. 

Mayo) 
Mayo,  W.  J.,  246-247 
McClatchy,  V.  S..  312,  313,  318-319 
McMaster,  J.  B.,  20,  33,  45,  40 
McReynolds,  S.  D.,  220-221 
Molly  Maguire,  50 
Moral  turpitude,  111,  135 

Nationality,  definition  of,  142-143 
National  origins,  183,  270-285 
Native  Americanism,  47-49 


Naturalization,  27-32,  47,  50,  121, 

225-229 
Net  immigration,  162,  165 
New  immigration,  150-151,  155,  158, 

160,  167,  204-207,  216,  217,  231- 

235,  239,  242,  244 
Newspapers,  foreign,  221 
Non-assimilation  (see  assimilation) 
Non-immigrants,  171-172 
Non-quota    immigrants,    152,  158, 

172-173 

Norris  v.  City  of  Boston,  63-67,  74- 
78 


Ochs,  A.,  265,  268 

Old  immigration,  150-151,  155,  158, 
160,  167,  203-204,  216,  218,  235, 
239,  243,  244 

Opposition  to  restriction,  201-202 

Orth,  S.  P.,  3,  4,  7,  9,  11,  20 

Otis,  H.  G.,  29 

Overseas  examinations,  41-42,  102, 
117-118,  184-192 

Passenger  cases,  63-67,  74-78 

Paupers,  deportation  to  colonies,  12; 
deportation  to  the  States,  36-44; 
Mass.  resolution  of  1836,  37;  Sen- 
ate address  of  John  Davis,  37-38; 
conditions  in  American  cities,  39; 
Congressional  resolutions,  40; 
consular  reports,  40-44;  statistics, 
51-57,  76-77,  120 

Penn,  William,  7-8 

People  V.  Compagnie  Generale 
Trans-Atlantique,  80-81,  88 

Periods  of  American  immigration, 
2-3 

Perry,  M.  C,  308 

Phelan,  J.  D,  319-321 

Philippine  Islands,  109-110 

Picture  brides,  312,  326 

Police  power,  State  regulation  un- 
der, 35-36 

Political  phases,  33,  34,  45,  47-50 

Popenoe,  P.,  229 

Population,  increase  of,  1-2 

Preferred  classes  under  quotas,  145, 
182 

Presidential  campaigns  of  1844  and 

1852.  47-50 
Presidential  powers  in  emergencies, 

98 

Prigg  V.  Commonwealth  of  Penn- 

svlvania,  72-73 
Proper,  E.  E.,  15,  16,  17,  21 


376 


INDEX 


&tml  powers  of  the  President 
concerning,  98  . 

?58-262;  legislation  on,  1^2  181- 
182,  183,  254-258;  comparison  oi 
laws  on,  253 

Reed,  D.  A.,  271,  279-281,  333,  334, 

338-339 
Reed,  J.  A.,  279-281 
Registration  of  aliens,  301-302 
ReFatives   of   immigrants,  173-1/6, 

R^i  - " 

17,  45-48 
Re  Simone,  97 
Roberts,  K.  L.,  252 

ItfJk  Theodore,  102-103,  3(^, 

314,  328,  332,  351 
Root,  Elihii,  217         ^.o  01Q 
Ross,  E.  A.,  7,  8  11,  218-219 

Russian  immigration, 

Safford,  M.  V.,  223-224 
Scotch-Irish  5  7 

^^^^^^ 

Sedgwick,  T.,  29 

Sherman  Rjger  28 

Shipstead,  IL,  275,  282 

Sitgreaves,  S  30 

Smith,  K.  iviayo,  ^,  _q 

Smith  V.  Turner,  63-67,  74-7»,  /y 

Smuggling,  156  219-220 
Socialists,  opposition  to,  49,  2iy 

221-222 

SociaUsm,  fear  of,  49 
Solicitation  of  immigration,  95  96 
Act  of  1864,  85 


State  legislation,  35-36,  74,  75  7h 

Steerage  legislation,  15,  83-85,  U. 

120,  133-134 
Stella,  A.,  250-251 
Stephens,  W.  D.,  326 
Students,  immigrant,  i/^ 
Sweeney,  A.,  232 

Taft  W  H.,  115,  123,  124 
Taxation  of  undesirable  immigrant 

14  15,  74,  79-80 
Travel  permits,  177-179;  cases,  1/8. 

179;  fees  from,  1/9 
Tsurumi,  Y.,  346-349 

T^t^lclLo  V.  Williams  199 
U  S  exrel.  Berlm  v  Rodgers  140 
U.  S.  ex  rel.  Diamond  v.  Uhl,  1.8 
Tj  S  V.  Johnson,  87 
U'.  S'.  V.  Ju  Toy,  102 


Veterans,  alien,  140,  172 
Visas,  184-194 

Walker,  Francis  A.,  219 

Wallis   V.   United    States   ex  rel. 

Mannara  127 
Ward,  Robt.  l^eC.  232  27U 
Warne,  F.  J.,  33,  34,  46,  57 
Washington,  George,  23-24 
Webster,  Daniel,  31-3i     ,    •  ^g^^ior 

114  120,  127-128,  136 
Whitfield  et  al.  V  Hanges,  140 

AVilson,  James,  61  216-2r 
Wilson,  Woodrow,  123,  124,  ^lo 

Woolston,  H.,  238 


1. 

i2, 
17 


Public  Library 
ibrary,  Copley  Square 

Division  of 
je  and  Research  Services 

Social  Sciences 
lepartment 

le  Date  Dte  Card  in  the  packet  indi- 
fates  the  dale  on  or  before  which  this 
)ook  should  fee  returned  to  the  Library. 

Please  do  no|  remove  cards  from  this 
pocket. 


\